| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Hannu Krosing" <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "PostgreSQL-development Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Is this really really as designed or defined in some standard |
| Date: | 2008-09-02 14:54:08 |
| Message-ID: | 13824.1220367248@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 2008/9/2 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>> BTW, there are actually two separate issues here: input parameters and
>> output parameters. After brief thought it seems like we should enforce
>> uniqueness of non-omitted parameter names for IN parameters (including
>> INOUT), and separately enforce uniqueness of non-omitted parameter names
>> for OUT parameters (including INOUT).
> It's well thought, but I afraid so this can hide some bug, and it's
> little bit dangerous.
> I thing, so we can simply duplicate values in result then allowing
> duplicate params in function.
Um ... what? I'm not sure what behavior you're proposing here.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2008-09-02 15:02:24 | Re: Is this really really as designed or defined in some standard |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-09-02 14:48:06 | Re: What is d2mdir? |