Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
> <dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote:
>> I think the best choice is to only accept qualified parameter names in
>> SQL functions (function_name.parameter_name). If a referenced table
>> share the function's name, ERROR out and HINT to alias the table name.
>>
>> If we allow more than that, we're opening the door to ambiguity, bug
>> reports, and more than that costly migrations. I don't see any benefit
>> in having to audit all SQL functions for ambiguity on a flag day, when
>> this could be avoided easily.
>
> That syntax is sufficiently unwieldly that few people will want to use
> it in real life, but certainly the backward compatibility problem is
> much less than with what Tom proposed.
Well, we would still support positional arguments like $1 $2 etc, right?
In Pavel's example I wouldn't mind about using the "values" parameter
name but would stick to using $1.
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
