David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What I mean by "kinda" is that it's a standard way of handling
> parameters in Oracle and in DBI. I think it would be a very bad idea
> to require that people use the function name in parameters, as such
> names can be quite long. People using names like
On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 12:44:07PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think a prefix of ':' would be good, as it's already a standard,
> > kinda. Anybody who names a database object :foo deserves whatever
> > happens to them :P
>
> The important word there is
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think a prefix of ':' would be good, as it's already a standard,
> kinda. Anybody who names a database object :foo deserves whatever
> happens to them :P
The important word there is "kinda". We do not need a prefix and
I'll resist introducing one.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
>
> I think a prefix of ':' would be good, as it's already a standard,
> kinda. Anybody who names a database object :foo deserves whatever
> happens to them :P
>
> Cheers,
> David.
+1
':' is shorter than 'this'. And ':' is well known in SQL area.
Pavel
---
On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 12:36:45PM +0100, Gevik Babakhani wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> This patch implements a (generic) callback functionality in the parser.
> The mechanism can be used to send callback messages from within the parser
> to external functions.
>
> I would like to know your opinion abo
Hello All,
This patch implements a (generic) callback functionality in the parser.
The mechanism can be used to send callback messages from within the parser
to external functions.
I would like to know your opinion about the following:
In previous discussion Tom referred to:
>One point here is
