Re: Schemas vs. PostQUEL: resolving qualified identifiers - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Schemas vs. PostQUEL: resolving qualified identifiers
Date
Msg-id 4503.1011812400@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Schemas vs. PostQUEL: resolving qualified identifiers  (Fernando Nasser <fnasser@redhat.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Fernando Nasser <fnasser@redhat.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Okay, but then how will you refer unambiguously to the rowtype object?

> 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".

Strikes me as gratuituously different from the way everything else is
done.  We have .* and %ROWTYPE and so forth, and they're all suffixes.
The closest analogy to your ROW syntax is CAST, but it doesn't alter the
initial interpretation of its argument.

I was toying with the notion of inventing some new notation liketable.**
I don't like double-asterisk much, but maybe there's some other symbol
we could use here?
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem