Re: named parameters in SQL functions

Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>>>> (But having said that, an alternate qualification name is something
>>>> that could be implemented if there were any agreement on what to use.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Well that is the tricky part, for sure. I would personally prefer
>>> something like ${name} rather than a prefix, but I think you're likely
>>> to veto that outright. So, anything reasonably short would be an
>>> improvement over the status quo. self? this? my?
>>>
>> I think it would have to be a reserved word. The obvious existing keyword to
>> use is "function" but unless I'm mistaken we'd need to move it from
>> unreserved keyword to reserved, and I'm not sure this would justify that.
>>
>
> I don't see why it would need to be a reserved word. We're not
> changing how it gets parsed, just what it means. At any rate
> "FUNCTION." is a 9-character prefix, which is rather longer than I
> would prefer. PL/pgsql is a tiresomely long-winded language in
> general, IMHO, although some of Tom's changes for 8.5 will help with
> that.
>
>
>

Umm, what has this to do with plpgsql? We're talking about what to use
in pure SQL functions.

If you find plpgsql tiresome, use something else. There are plenty of
alternatives.

I think the debate is likely to be pointless in any case - it seems
clear that there are objections to anything other than
funcname.paramname as a disambiguating mechanism, so let's just go with
that. It will still be a considerable advance.

cheers

andrew