Andrew Chernow <a...@esilo.com> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> (But having said that, an alternate qualification name is something >> that could be implemented if there were any agreement on what to use.)
> Would something like ARG.name be acceptable? It all depends on how likely you think it is that the function would use a table name or alias matching ARG (or any other proposal). It's certainly true that the function name itself is not immune from conflicts of that sort ... in fact I think we saw a bug report recently from someone who had intentionally chosen a plpgsql function name equal to a table name used in the function :-(. So I'm not wedded to the function name entirely. But it has precedent in plpgsql, and that precedent came from Oracle, so I don't think we should lightly make SQL functions do something different. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers