On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 12:10:00AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Philip Yarra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Without really wishing to volunteer myself: should plpgsql allow using
parameters with the same name as the columns being referred to within the
function, provided they're qualified as
Just testing pl/pgsql functions in 8.1beta4, I see failures for syntax that
works in 8.0.3. The simplest test case for this is:
create table ptest(foo int, bar varchar(10));
create or replace function modify_ptest(
foo int,
bar varchar)
returns numeric as $$
declare
res
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005, Philip Yarra wrote:
Just testing pl/pgsql functions in 8.1beta4, I see failures for syntax that
works in 8.0.3. The simplest test case for this is:
The function below fails for me similarly in 8.0.3 on execution. 8.1
merely tells you at creation time.
Using bar and foo
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 01:37 pm, Stephan Szabo wrote:
The function below fails for me similarly in 8.0.3 on execution. 8.1
merely tells you at creation time.
Ah, good point... works for very small values of works then :-) My
mistake.
Using bar and foo as both parameter names and the field
Philip Yarra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Without really wishing to volunteer myself: should plpgsql allow using
parameters with the same name as the columns being referred to within the
function, provided they're qualified as function_name.parameter?
No, because that just changes where the
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 02:10 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
Without really wishing to volunteer myself: should plpgsql allow using
parameters with the same name as the columns being referred to within the
function, provided they're qualified as function_name.parameter?
No, because that just changes
Philip Yarra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hmmm... is it feasible to make the error message a little more useful?
People who didn't use the old-style positional parameters might not
understand where $1 and $2 are coming from.
Not sure how --- the arm's-length relationship between plpgsql and the
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 03:03 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
Philip Yarra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hmmm... is it feasible to make the error message a little more useful?
People who didn't use the old-style positional parameters might not
understand where $1 and $2 are coming from.
Not sure how --- the
