Andrew Chernow <a...@esilo.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.
> If the concern is portability, (ANYTHING).name won't work. You would have to
> stick with function.name or support both styles.
I find the recent SQL drafts pretty darn opaque, but I think that
SQL:2008 6.6 <identifier chain> syntax rule 8)b)ii)
If N = 2 and PIC1 is equivalent to the <qualified identifier> of
a <routine name> RN whose scope contains IC and whose associated <SQL
parameter declaration list> includes an SQL parameter SP whose <SQL
parameter name> is equivalent to I2, then PIC2 is a candidate basis of
IC, the scope of PIC2 is the scope of SP, and the referent of PIC2 is
SP.
is describing the style "function_name.argument_name". So it's not just
Oracle setting that precedent.
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
