On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 02:10 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Without really wishing to volunteer myself: should plpgsql allow using
> > parameters with the same name as the columns being referred to within the
> > function, provided they're qualified as function_name.parameter?
>
> No, because that just changes where the ambiguity is. The function name
> could easily conflict with a table name.
Yup, I guess it could.
> It's a mighty weird-looking
> convention anyway --- on what grounds would you argue that the function
> is a structure having parameter names as fields?
I wasn't arguing either way, I was just curious.
Hmmm... is it feasible to make the error message a little more useful? People
who didn't use the old-style positional parameters might not understand where
$1 and $2 are coming from.
Regards, Philip.
-----------------
Utiba Pty Ltd
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by Utiba mail server and is
believed to be clean.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
