Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: pl/pgsql breakage in 8.1b4?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Philip Yarra <philip(at)utiba(dot)com>
Cc: Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pl/pgsql breakage in 8.1b4?
Date: 2005-10-28 04:10:00
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Philip Yarra <philip(at)utiba(dot)com> writes:
> Without really wishing to volunteer myself: should plpgsql allow using 
> parameters with the same name as the columns being referred to within the 
> function, provided they're qualified as function_name.parameter?

No, because that just changes where the ambiguity is.  The function name
could easily conflict with a table name.  It's a mighty weird-looking
convention anyway --- on what grounds would you argue that the function
is a structure having parameter names as fields?

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2005-10-28 04:14:56
Subject: Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((itemid)->lp_flags & 0x01)", File: "nbtsearch.c", Line: 89)
Previous:From: Philip YarraDate: 2005-10-28 03:54:27
Subject: Re: pl/pgsql breakage in 8.1b4?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group