Philip Yarra <philip(at)utiba(dot)com> writes:
> Without really wishing to volunteer myself: should plpgsql allow using
> parameters with the same name as the columns being referred to within the
> function, provided they're qualified as function_name.parameter?
No, because that just changes where the ambiguity is. The function name
could easily conflict with a table name. It's a mighty weird-looking
convention anyway --- on what grounds would you argue that the function
is a structure having parameter names as fields?
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Jim C. Nasby||Date: 2005-10-28 04:14:56|
|Subject: Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((itemid)->lp_flags & 0x01)", File: "nbtsearch.c", Line: 89)|
|Previous:||From: Philip Yarra||Date: 2005-10-28 03:54:27|
|Subject: Re: pl/pgsql breakage in 8.1b4?|