Re: How hard would it be to support LIKE in return declaration of generic record function calls ?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: How hard would it be to support LIKE in return declaration of generic record function calls ?
Date: 2012-05-03 14:50:47
Message-ID: 23392.1336056647@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 2012/5/3 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>> This notion of "anytypename" is utterly unworkable anyway; there's no
>> way for the parser to know soon enough that a given argument position
>> needs to be read as a type name rather than a normal expression.

> type identifier is same identifier like other - but I have no
> prototype now, so I don't know if there is some trap

No, it isn't, at least not if you have any ambition to support array
types for instance; to say nothing of types whose standard names are
keywords, multiple words, etc. Even if you were willing to restrict the
feature to only work for simple-identifier type names, the parser would
have thrown an error for failing to find a column by that name, or else
would have misinterpreted the type name as a column name, long before
there is any opportunity to recognize that the argument position is
an "anytypename" argument.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-05-03 14:53:32 Re: "unexpected EOF" messages
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2012-05-03 14:49:41 Re: "unexpected EOF" messages