Re: Specific names for plpgsql variable-resolution control options? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Sergio A. Kessler
Subject Re: Specific names for plpgsql variable-resolution control options?
Date
Msg-id 49216030911070929v14bdd607gd7ea16b2ebbddd1@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Specific names for plpgsql variable-resolution control options?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Specific names for plpgsql variable-resolution control options?
List pgsql-hackers
hi tom, sorry for the out-of-the-blue email (I'm not on the list)...

On Nov 6, 2009, at 12:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

> I believe we had consensus that plpgsql should offer the following
> three
> behaviors when a name in a SQL query could refer to either a plpgsql
> variable or a column from a table of the query:
>     * prefer the plpgsql variable (plpgsql's historical behavior)
>     * prefer the table column (Oracle-compatible)
>     * throw error for the ambiguity (to become the factory default)
> and that we wanted a way for users to select one of these behaviors
> at the
> per-function level, plus provide a SUSET GUC to determine the default
> behavior when there is not a specification in the function text.
>
> What we did not have was any concrete suggestions for the name or
> values of the GUC, nor for the exact per-function syntax beyond the
> thought that it could look something like the existing '#option dump'
> modifier.
>
> The code is now there and ready to go, so I need a decision on these
> user-visible names in order to proceed.  Anyone have ideas?

is this become configurable somehow,
how would I know that my code work as expected when I distribute my code ?

one option is to put
foo_variable_conflict = error
throughout the code, which can be thousands of lines, which is not
nice just to be sure my code works as expected no matter what...
(setting a general GUC can interfere with another code, which presumes
different things)

and moreover, is a burden for postgresql that should be supporting
'foo_variable_conflict' in the foreseeable  future...

IMO, postgres should stick with one option (+1 for error) and be done
with this, just one simple rule to rule them all...
and with this, there is no need to band-aid the code just in case...

regards,
/sergio


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: operator exclusion constraints
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: operator exclusion constraints