On Sep 8, 2010, at 3:17 PM, Darren Duncan <dar...@darrenduncan.net> wrote: > 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.
This has been proposed in the past and Tom has rejected it, but I agree that it would be useful. The key word in this proposal is "terse". ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
