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
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 about the
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
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.
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 kinda. We
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 :foo
