| From: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 06:46:19 |
| Message-ID: | 162867790809012346y2e346918vc19d83c9cb850106@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2008/9/1 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> So, should this be fixed at calling / SQL side (by not allowing
>> repeating argument names) or at pl side for each pl separately ?
>
> I'm for fixing it just once, ie, in CREATE FUNCTION. I can't imagine
> any scenario where it's a good idea to have duplicate function parameter
> names.
>
> However, since this is a behavioral change that could break code that
> works now, I think it should be a HEAD-only change; no backpatch.
I agree - it's could break only 100% wrong code, but it could problems
in minor update.
Could you backpach only warning?
regards
Pavel
>
> regards, tom lane
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-09-02 06:51:09 | Re: Window functions patch v04 for the September commit fest |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-09-02 06:42:25 | Re: Window functions patch v04 for the September commit fest |