From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: WIP: Allow SQL-language functions to reference parameters by parameter name |
Date: | 2011-04-14 18:54:39 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTin1K_NXfa2ZK96i=5ZX5XEerOmkTg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
<dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> rhaas=# CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION developer_lookup(id integer)
>> RETURNS text AS $$SELECT name FROM developer WHERE id = $1$$ LANGUAGE
>> sql STABLE;
>>
>> Now, when this person attempts to recreate this function on a
>> hypothetical version of PostgreSQL that thinks "id" is ambiguous, it
>> doesn't work.
>
> Unless we make it so that no such version ever exists. Meaning that the
> code works fine as is or using WHERE id = developer_lookup.id. AS id
> can't ever be the parameter in this case, you're just fine.
>
> Bearing in mind that $1 etc shortcuts still are available, I don't
> really see this qualification of parameter names with function names so
> big a problem that we should find a way to avoid it and risk breaking
> compatibility.
>
> Don't forget that any ambiguity here will mean *huge* migration costs.
If I'm reading your email correctly, we're in agreement.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-04-14 19:36:09 | Re: Single client performance on trivial SELECTs |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-04-14 18:50:03 | Re: proposal: a validator for configuration files |