Not able to means not implementable o not implemented ? On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Pavel Stehule <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Hannu > > it's not possible inNot able to plpgsql, because we are not able iterate > via record. > > Pavel > > 2008/8/17 Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Sun, 2008-08-17 at 11:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > Actually the most "natural" syntax to me is just f(name=value) similar > >> > to how UPDATE does it. It has the added benefit of _not_ forcing us to > >> > make a operator reserved (AFAIK "=" can't be used to define new ops) > >> > >> *What* are you thinking? > > > > I think that we could achieve what Pavel was after by allowing one to > > define something similar to keyword arguments in python. > > > > maybe allow input RECORD type, which is instantiated at call time by > > giving extra arguments to function call: > > > > CREATE FUNCTION f_kw(r record) .... > > > > and then if you call it like this: > > > > SELECT ... f_kw(name='bob', age=7::int) > > > > then function gets as its input a record > > which can be accessed in pl/pgsql like > > > > r.name r.age > > > > and if terseness is really appreciated then the it could also be called > > like this > > > > SELECT ... f_kw(name, age) from people where name='bob'; > > > > which is rewritten to > > > > SELECT ... f_kw(name=name, age=age) from people where name='bob'; > > > > > > not sure if we should allow defining SETOF RECORD and then enable > > calling it with > > > > SELECT * > > FROM f_kw( > > VALUES(name='bob', age=7::int), > > VALUES(name='bill', age=42::int > > ); > > > > or somesuch > > > > ------------------ > > Hannu > > > > > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers >
