On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Hannu Krosing <ha...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > it would be > > ... > [ WITH ( [LOCAL] attribute [, ...] ) ] > > where LOCAL attributes are _not_ inherited by nested functions > but the LOCALs would shadow globals in the function definitions > that have them. > > I know it is easier said than done, but from the user perspective > this could be a nice clean approach.
Drawbacks of that approach are mainly you would need to specify a lot of attributes for newly written functions to get the behaviour you want, and it also won't reduce the complexity of the language, rather the contrary, the more settings and the more alternative ways of doing things, the more complex will the implementation of the language become. This is why postgresql is surperiour to for instance mysql, as with mysql you need to set a lot of obscure settings to get the desired behaviour, like making 2014-03-31 an error instead of allow the invalid value. I wish plpgsql was just like postgresql, a very strict language. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
