Re: WIP: Allow SQL-language functions to reference parameters by parameter name
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
To: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, "David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>, Matthew Draper <matthew@trebex.net>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-04-05T21:52:58Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 04/05/2011 03:45 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote: > Talking about the standards compliance of functions is a bit silly: > our implementation of functions isn't even close to approximating what > looks to be the standard (according to this at least: > http://farrago.sourceforge.net/design/UserDefinedTypesAndRoutines.html) > and there is no point pretending that it is. In practice, database > functions and procedures are 100% vendor incompatible with each other, > and with the standard. I was just talking about $ getting reserved > for some special meaning in the future. > > mysql supports psm, which we don't. oracle supports pl/sql, which is > similar to pl/pgsql, but means nothing in terms of postgresql sql > language argument disambiguation afaict. It's our language and we > should be able to extend it. > > That doesn't mean we should arbitrarily break compatibility with pl/sql, nor that we should feel free to add on warts such as $varname that are completely at odds with the style of the rest of the language. That doesn't do anything except produce a mess. cheers andrew