> "Gevik Babakhani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So where do we go from here?
> > a. .
> > b. .
> > c. ':'
> > d. just
>
> We must support both a and d.
Then a and d it is :)
Regards,
Gevik
Gevik Babakhani
PostgreSQL NL http://www.post
"Gevik Babakhani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So where do we go from here?
> a. .
> b. .
> c. ':'
> d. just
We must support both a and d.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet
David Fetter
> Cc: Tom Lane; Gevik Babakhani; pgsql-patches@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCHES] V0.2 patch for TODO Item: SQL-language
> referenceparameters by name.
>
>
> "David Fetter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > What I mean by "
"David Fetter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What I mean by "kinda" is that it's a standard way of handling
> parameters in Oracle and in DBI.
That's a good reason *not* to use them for other purposes. Users trying to
create procedures through DBI or other interfaces like it will run into
prob
> I think a prefix of ':' would be good, as it's already a
> standard, kinda. Anybody who names a database object :foo
> deserves whatever happens to them :P
>
I for one like something less cryptic than ':'
besids going with ':' means extra hack in gram.y
(Ones we get to implement packages I
