2012/4/15 Brendan Jurd <dire...@gmail.com>: > On 15 April 2012 18:54, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 2012/4/15 Brendan Jurd <dire...@gmail.com>: >>> Perhaps it's a failure of imagination on my part, but I can't think of >>> a legitimate reason for a programmer to deliberately use the same name >>> to refer to a declared variable and a function parameter. What would >>> be the benefit? >> >> it depends on level of nesting blocks. For simple functions there >> parameter redeclaration is clean bug, but for more nested blocks and >> complex procedures, there should be interesting using some local >> variables with same identifier like some parameters and blocking >> parameter's identifier can be same unfriendly feature like RO >> parameters in previous pg versions. >> >> I understand your motivation well, but solution should be warning, not >> blocking. I think. > > I can accept that ... but I wonder about the implementation of such a > warning. Can we raise a WARNING message on CREATE [OR REPLACE] > FUNCTION? If so, should there be a way to switch it off? If so, > would this be implemented globally, or per-function? Would it be a > postgres run-time setting, or an extension to CREATE FUNCTION syntax, > or something within the PL/pgSQL code (like Perl's 'use strict')?
We can raise warning from CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION - but I would to like have plpgsql_check_function inside core - and it is better place for this and similar issues. Now we talk about features in 9.3, and there check_function should be. Regards Pavel > > Cheers, > BJ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
