Tom Lane wrote:
>
> "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at> writes:
> > What I do not like at all is the notion that "table" == "table".* .
> > (IIRC there has already been some discussion where I objected to that.)
>
> > "table" as function parameter imho passes an object of type "table"
> > to the function. This involves type checking, and that the function only
> > has one argument.
>
> > "table".* to the contrary is not an object, but one object (one parameter)
> > per table column. This is imho easier to understand, since select table.*
> > also does it like that. Thus calling func(table.*) should imho rather be
> > mapped to func (table.col1, table.col2 ...).
>
> Okay, but then how will you refer unambiguously to the rowtype object?
> If you write func(schema.tab) the system will misinterpret it as
> func(tab.col) --- which, in the worst case, might fail to fail because
> there actually is such a column. We have to make some compromises here.
> I'm not all that thrilled with foo.* for rowtype either, but you haven't
> offered a workable alternative.
>
What about casting with the keyord ROW?
func(ROW table)
always refers to the row-type of table "table" even if there is
a column called "table".
--
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat - Toronto E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9
