On Mar 25, 2011, at 4:20 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> GUCs are not tremendously helpful for problems such as this. If we
> actually wanted to preserve full backwards compatibility, we'd need to
> think of a way to mark SQL functions per-function as to what to do.
> But I don't think that's necessary. Up to now there's been relatively
> little use for naming the parameters of SQL functions, so I think there
> will be few conflicts in the field if we just change the behavior.
Oh wow, I don't agree with that at all. People may name the parameters for documentation purposes, and then have things
likeWHERE foo = $1, foo happening also to be the name associated with $1. Boom!
In any case, I think this is 9.2 material. We need to get a beta out the door, and I emphatically think we should be
focusingon resolving the issues with features already committed, not committing new ones.
...Robert
