Re: function_name.parameter_name

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Sergey Konoplev wrote:
>> 1.
>> CREATE FUNCTION func_name(arg_name text) RETURNS integer AS $$
>> BEGIN
>> RAISE INFO '%', func_name.arg_name;
>> ...
>>
>> 2.
>> CREATE FUNCTION func_name() RETURNS integer AS $$
>> DECLARE
>> var_name text := 'bla';
>> BEGIN
>> RAISE INFO '%', func_name.var_name;
>> ...
>>
>> 3.
>> CREATE FUNCTION func_very_very_very_very_long_name() RETURNS integer AS $$
>> << func_alias >>
>> DECLARE
>> var_name text := 'bla';
>> BEGIN
>> RAISE INFO '%', func_alias.var_name;
>> ...

I suggest that it might be reasonable to introduce a new syntax, that isn't
already valid for something inside a routine, and use that as a terse way to
reference the current function and/or its parameters. This may best be a simple
constant syntax.

For example, iff it isn't already valid for a qualified name to have a leading
period/full-stop/radix-marker, then this could be introduced as a valid way to
refer to the current routine.

Then in the above examples you can say:

RAISE INFO '%', .arg_name;

RAISE INFO '%', .var_name;

... without explicitly declaring a func_alias.

In a tangent, you can also use a new constant syntax (unless you have one?) to
allow a routine to invoke itself without knowing its own name, which could be
nice in a simple recursive routine. Maybe ".(arg,arg)" would do it?

I would think this should be non-intrusive and useful and could go in 9.1.

-- Darren Duncan