Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax
Date
Msg-id CAFj8pRDL2Y7xp_uFMHLzFxVaEnmwcChL1ha-4dKGTy490q+B-Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers



2013/5/2 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Marko Tiikkaja <marko@joh.to> writes:
> What I'm more interested in is: how can we make this feature work in
> PL/PgSQL where OLD means something different?

That's a really good point: if you follow this approach then you're
creating fundamental conflicts for use of the feature in trigger
functions or rules, which will necessarily have conflicting uses of
those names.  Yeah, we could define scoping rules such that there's
an unambiguous interpretation, but then the user is just out of luck
if he wants to reference the other definition.  (This problem is
probably actually worse if you implement with reserved words rather
than aliases.)

I'm thinking it would be better to invent some other notation for access
to old-row values.

I am not sure, but I am thinking so NEW and OLD are used in some statements and features ANSI SQL 2012, so probably we should to do keywords from these words if we would to support modern ANSI SQL

Regards

Pavel
 

                        regards, tom lane


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: high io BUT huge amount of free memory
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax