On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> One reason to argue for the other way is that maybe it wouldn't only
> be consulted by plpgsql. In particular I can easily imagine SQL
> functions having the same issue as soon as someone gets around to
> letting them use names for their parameters.
I don't have a strong feeling on the core issue but I don't agree with
this point. AIUI, we are implementing multiple behaviors here for
reasons of backward and competing-product compatibility. Presumably,
if we're starting from scratch, we'll pick a sensible behavior -
probably error in the case of SQL - and stick with it.
...Robert