"Kevin Grittner" <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: > Yeb Havinga <yebhavi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I personally tend to believe it doesn't even need to be an error. >> There is no technical reason not to allow it. All the user needs >> to do is make sure that the combination of named parameters and >> the positional ones together are complete and not overlapping. >> This is also in line with calling functions, where mixing named >> and positional is allowed, as long as the positional arguments >> are first. Personally I have no opinion what is best, include the >> feature or give an error, and I removed the possibility during >> the previous commitfest. > > If there's no technical reason not to allow them to be mixed, I > would tend to favor consistency with parameter calling rules. > Doing otherwise seems like to result in confusion and "bug" > reports. Er, that was supposed to read "I would tend to favor consistency with function calling rules." As stated here: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/interactive/sql-syntax-calling-funcs.html | PostgreSQL also supports mixed notation, which combines positional | and named notation. In this case, positional parameters are | written first and named parameters appear after them. > How do others feel? If there are no objections, I suggest that Yeb implement the mixed notation for cursor parameters. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
