On 2013-05-02 12:23:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Marko Tiikkaja <ma...@joh.to> writes: > > What I'm more interested in is: how can we make this feature work in > > PL/PgSQL where OLD means something different? > > That's a really good point: if you follow this approach then you're > creating fundamental conflicts for use of the feature in trigger > functions or rules, which will necessarily have conflicting uses of > those names. Yeah, we could define scoping rules such that there's > an unambiguous interpretation, but then the user is just out of luck > if he wants to reference the other definition. (This problem is > probably actually worse if you implement with reserved words rather > than aliases.) > > I'm thinking it would be better to invent some other notation for access > to old-row values.
prior/after? Both are unreserved keywords atm and it seems far less likely to have conflicts than new/old. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
