From: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Hannu Krosing" <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL-development Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: proposal sql: labeled function params |
Date: | 2008-08-15 06:32:01 |
Message-ID: | 162867790808142332r2b8206efh12924f6467709454@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2008/8/15 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> How is this supposed to interact with argument names ?
>
> Yeah, the real problem with this proposal is that it conscripts a syntax
> that we'll probably want to use in the future for argument-name-based
> parameter matching. The proposed behavior is not nearly as useful as
> that would be.
It isn't. As Hannu showed these features should live in harmony (if we
will accept Oracle's syntax). I see as real problem new column in
pg_proc, that allow quickly chose between labeled and non labeled
functions - and then collect labels in parse time. This is way for
adding parameter info into variadic function - it's main goal of this
proposal. Without column in pg_proc it could same slowdowns like first
variadic function's implementation.
Regards
Pavel Stehule
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | alexander lunyov | 2008-08-15 07:54:32 | Re: migrate data 6.5.3 -> 8.3.1 |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2008-08-15 06:22:58 | Re: proposal sql: labeled function params |