> > I think there are a few rules we can use to decide how to deal with
> > imperfect solutions:
> You forgot
> * will the fix institutionalize user-visible behavior that will in the
> long run be considered the wrong thing?
> * will the fix contort new code that is written in the same vicinity,
> thereby making it harder and harder to replace as time goes on?
> The first of these is the core of my concern about %TYPE.
I was thinking about this. Seems if we want to emulate Oracle, we have
to make %TYPE visible the way it is implemented in the patch. We can
make it track table changes or not, but it doesn't seem we have much
latitude in how we make it visible to users.
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Pascal Scheffers||Date: 2001-06-01 06:15:39|
|Subject: Re: Support for %TYPE in CREATE FUNCTION|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2001-06-01 00:58:34|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] extra syntax on INSERT |