On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 06:28:53PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > 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.
BEFORE/AFTER seems more logical to me. Yes, those words both have meaning in, for example, a trigger definition, but they're clearly separable by context. Yay, bike-shedding! Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
