Hello >> >> Well, if we're going to consider 100% backwards compatibility a "must", >> then we should just stick with what the submitted patch does, ie, >> unqualified names are matched first to query columns, and to parameters >> only if there's no column match. This is also per spec if I interpreted >> Peter's comments correctly. The whole thread started because I >> suggested that throwing an error for ambiguous cases might be a better >> design in the long run, but apparently long term ease of code >> maintenance is far down our list of priorities ... >> >> > > I think the discussion went off into the weeds somewhat, and I'm guilty of > responding to suggestions that don't refer to the original subject. > > For SQL language functions, I think you're right. The only caveat I have is > that if your function name is very long, having to use it as a > disambiguating qualifier can be a bit ugly.
same mechanism works well in plpgsql and nobody requested a some special shortcut. Regards Pavel > > cheers > > andrew > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
