Re: named parameters in SQL functions

2009/11/16 Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>:
> At Tom's suggestion I am looking at allowing use of parameter names in SQL
> functions instead of requiring use of $1 etc. That raises the question of
> how we would disambiguate a parameter name from a column name. Essentially,
> ISTM, we could use some special marker such as @ (c.f. SQL Server) or :
> (c.f. ecpg) or else we could have some rule that says which name takes
> precedence. I think I prefer a special marker, other things being equal. Is
> there a standard on this?

Sorry if I'm missing something important here, but why not just
resolve the parameter names in whatever way PL/PgSQL has been doing
it? It seems to work well.

FWIW I always prefix my parameter names with _ to differentiate them
from columns.

Cheers,
BJ