Robert Haas <[email protected]> writes:
> On Mar 25, 2011, at 4:20 PM, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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!
Well, maybe, but it's not like it's subtle or hard to fix.
> In any case, I think this is 9.2 material.
Oh, of course. It *is* just a WIP patch, anyway.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
