Re: pl/pgsql breakage in 8.1b4? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: pl/pgsql breakage in 8.1b4?
Date
Msg-id 26490.1130472600@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pl/pgsql breakage in 8.1b4?  (Philip Yarra <philip@utiba.com>)
Responses Re: pl/pgsql breakage in 8.1b4?
Re: pl/pgsql breakage in 8.1b4?
List pgsql-hackers
Philip Yarra <philip@utiba.com> writes:
> 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.  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?
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Philip Yarra
Date:
Subject: Re: pl/pgsql breakage in 8.1b4?
Next
From: "Jim C. Nasby"
Date:
Subject: Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((itemid)->lp_flags & 0x01)", File: "nbtsearch.c", Line: 89)