| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Controlling changes in plpgsql variable resolution |
| Date: | 2009-10-19 16:29:16 |
| Message-ID: | 20091019162916.GL17756@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* David E. Wheeler (david(at)kineticode(dot)com) wrote:
> On Oct 19, 2009, at 8:36 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> I think warnings are too easy to miss, but I agree your other
>> suggestion. I know you can write function_name.variable_name, but
>> that's often massively long-winded. We either need a short, fixed
>> prefix, or some kind of sigil. I previously suggested ? to parallel
>> ECPG, but Tom didn't like it. I still do. :-)
>
> I suppose that $ would interfere with dollar quoting. What about @ or @@
> (sorry, I did mess with MSSQL back in the 90s).
Uh, what dollar quoting? $_$ is what I typically use, so I wouldn't
expect a $ prefix to cause a problem. I think it'd be more of an issue
because pl/pgsql still uses $1 and whatnot internally (doesn't it?).
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-10-19 16:37:19 | Re: Rejecting weak passwords |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2009-10-19 16:27:21 | Re: Controlling changes in plpgsql variable resolution |