| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Matthew Draper <matthew(at)trebex(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: Allow SQL-language functions to reference parameters by parameter name |
| Date: | 2011-03-26 03:23:42 |
| Message-ID: | 28741.1301109822@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> As I've said before, I believe that the root cause of this problem is
> that using the same syntax for variables and column names is a bad
> idea in the first place. If we used $foo or ?foo or ${foo} or $.foo
> or &&foo!!$#? to mean "the parameter called foo", then this would all
> be a non-issue.
If this were PL/perl, or PL/almost-anything-except-SQL, I could get
behind such a proposal. But it's not, it's SQL; and SQL doesn't do
things that way. SQL's idea of disambiguation is qualified names.
And even more to the point: to the extent you think that weird syntax
might be a suitable solution, you have to keep in mind that the SQL
committee could take over any such syntax at the drop of a hat.
See the recent unpleasantness concerning => ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Darren Duncan | 2011-03-26 03:50:21 | resolving SQL ambiguity (was Re: WIP: Allow SQL-lang funcs to ref params by param name) |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2011-03-26 03:05:50 | Re: WIP: Allow SQL-language functions to reference parameters by parameter name |