2010/7/4 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> my syntax is reflecting fact, so these are not true parameters - it's
>> +/- similar to default values of function parameters.
>
> FWIW, that doesn't seem like a positive to me.
>
>> You cannot to
>> write do (a int := $1) $$ ... $$ - because utils statements hasn't
>> have variables.
>
> Yet.  I don't particularly want to relax that either, but the syntax of
> this feature shouldn't assume it'll be true forever.
>
> I think it's better to not confuse these things with default parameters,
> so Florian's idea looks better to me.

Maybe I am didn't  explain well my idea. The most all is modificated
named notation enhanced about type info. It isn't default parameter
definition - so I use ":=" and not use "=". And it has same advantage
like named notation has. Using a keyword "USING" isn't perfectly clean
for me - I have a problem with position of parameters - but if other
people feel it different, I'll not have a problem.

do(a int := 20, b int := 20) $$ ... $$;
do (a int, b int) $$ .... $$ USING 10,20;

generally both syntaxes are used now.

This patch is just concept - I spoke it, I would to show attractive
behave, and Florian showed possible  wery nice colaboration shell with
psql. I don't want to insult somebody.

Regards
Pavel Stehule



>
> BTW, we intentionally didn't put any provision for parameters into DO
> originally.  What's changed to alter that decision?
>
>                        regards, tom lane
>

In response to

• Re: proof concept: do statement parametrization at 2010-07-04 13:58:04 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Andrew Dunstan	Date: 2010-07-04 15:38:47
	Subject: Re: proof concept: do statement parametrization
Previous:	From: Pavel Stehule	Date: 2010-07-04 14:43:54
	Subject: Re: proof concept: do statement parametrization