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
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
