On Mar 25, 2011, at 4:20 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > GUCs are not tremendously helpful for problems such as this. If we > actually wanted to preserve full backwards compatibility, we'd need to > think of a way to mark SQL functions per-function as to what to do. > But I don't think that's necessary. Up to now there's been relatively > little use for naming the parameters of SQL functions, so I think there > will be few conflicts in the field if we just change the behavior.
Oh wow, I don't agree with that at all. People may name the parameters for documentation purposes, and then have things like WHERE foo = $1, foo happening also to be the name associated with $1. Boom! In any case, I think this is 9.2 material. We need to get a beta out the door, and I emphatically think we should be focusing on resolving the issues with features already committed, not committing new ones. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
