Re: proposal sql: labeled function params

Not able to means not implementable o not implemented ?

On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>wrote:

> Hannu
>
> it's not possible inNot able to plpgsql, because we are not able iterate
> via record.
>
> Pavel
>
> 2008/8/17 Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>:
> > On Sun, 2008-08-17 at 11:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> >> > Actually the most "natural" syntax to me is just f(name=value) similar
> >> > to how UPDATE does it. It has the added benefit of _not_ forcing us to
> >> > make a operator reserved (AFAIK "=" can't be used to define new ops)
> >>
> >> *What* are you thinking?
> >
> > I think that we could achieve what Pavel was after by allowing one to
> > define something similar to keyword arguments in python.
> >
> > maybe allow input RECORD type, which is instantiated at call time by
> > giving extra arguments to function call:
> >
> > CREATE FUNCTION f_kw(r record) ....
> >
> > and then if you call it like this:
> >
> > SELECT ... f_kw(name='bob', age=7::int)
> >
> > then function gets as its input a record
> > which can be accessed in pl/pgsql like
> >
> > r.name r.age
> >
> > and if terseness is really appreciated then the it could also be called
> > like this
> >
> > SELECT ... f_kw(name, age) from people where name='bob';
> >
> > which is rewritten to
> >
> > SELECT ... f_kw(name=name, age=age) from people where name='bob';
> >
> >
> > not sure if we should allow defining SETOF RECORD and then enable
> > calling it with
> >
> > SELECT *
> > FROM f_kw(
> > VALUES(name='bob', age=7::int),
> > VALUES(name='bill', age=42::int
> > );
> >
> > or somesuch
> >
> > ------------------
> > Hannu
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>