Re: named parameters in SQL functions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: named parameters in SQL functions
Date: 2009-11-16 03:05:53
Message-ID: 29845.1258340753@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I don't see why it would need to be a reserved word. We're not
> changing how it gets parsed, just what it means. At any rate
> "FUNCTION." is a 9-character prefix, which is rather longer than I
> would prefer.

This from the guy who likes 40-character function names?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2009-11-16 03:14:22 Re: named parameters in SQL functions
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-11-16 03:04:11 Re: named parameters in SQL functions