Re: Is this really really as designed or defined in some standard - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: Is this really really as designed or defined in some standard
Date
Msg-id 162867790809012346y2e346918vc19d83c9cb850106@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Is this really really as designed or defined in some standard  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Is this really really as designed or defined in some standard  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
2008/9/1 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> Hannu Krosing <hannu@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
>> So, should this be fixed at calling / SQL side (by not allowing
>> repeating argument names) or at pl side for each pl separately ?
>
> I'm for fixing it just once, ie, in CREATE FUNCTION.  I can't imagine
> any scenario where it's a good idea to have duplicate function parameter
> names.
>
> However, since this is a behavioral change that could break code that
> works now, I think it should be a HEAD-only change; no backpatch.

I agree - it's could break only 100% wrong code, but it could problems
in minor update.

Could you backpach only warning?

regards
Pavel

>
>                        regards, tom lane
>


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Window functions patch v04 for the September commit fest
Next
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Window functions patch v04 for the September commit fest