| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Controlling changes in plpgsql variable resolution |
| Date: | 2009-10-19 19:23:39 |
| Message-ID: | 10094.1255980219@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
> On Oct 19, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Where exactly would you put the modifier, and why is that better than
>> the existing #option convention?
> CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION foo()
> RETURNS BOOLEAN
> LANGUAGE plpgsql WITH opt1, opt2
> AS $$...$$;
> That is, the specification of options is made outside of the language
> in question.
I don't think I particularly care for this. It's inventing a global
mechanism to cover a problem that we currently have one instance of
in one PL. That's a mighty thin justification. Also, I tend to think
that you should have several instances of a problem before you venture
to design a global solution --- else your one-size-fits-all solution
might turn out to be a lot less general than you thought.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-10-19 19:46:26 | Re: Controlling changes in plpgsql variable resolution |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-10-19 19:14:58 | Re: Controlling changes in plpgsql variable resolution |