Re: WIP: Allow SQL-language functions to reference parameters by parameter name

On Mar 28, 2011, at 3:18 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On lör, 2011-03-26 at 09:41 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> You can't be guaranteed that they won't standardize something
>> incompatible no matter what we do.  We could choose to do it as you've
>> proposed and they could then standardize some weird syntax - the => is
>> a fairly relevant example of exactly that.
> 
> The matter of how to resolve SQL parameter names is already
> standardized.  See clause on <identifier chain>.

Was there a final consensus on this?

FWIW, if we go with using function name, it'd be nice to be allowed to alias that. I don't have a strong opinion between that and using : or $ or whatever. I do feel strongly that we must continue to support existing SQL functions in a reasonable fashion. Having the function blow up on the first invocation is no better than breaking the dump. There should be either a backwards-compatibility mode, or better yet, a way to automatically convert functions to be compatible with the new syntax.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect                   jim@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell)                         http://jim.nasby.net