Re: Initial review of xslt with no limits patch

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, Mike Fowler <mike@mlfowler.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2010-08-06T18:32:33Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
> For Tom: proposed syntax can be used generally - everywhere when you
> are working with collection. It can be used for hash (hstore)
> constructor for example. For me is more readable code like

> select hstore(name := 'Tomas', surname := 'Novak')

You've tried to sell us on that before, with few takers.  This proposed
use-case impresses me even less than the previous ones, because callers
of xslt_process seem quite likely to need to work with non-constant
parameter names.

In any case, given what we have at the moment for function overload
resolution rules, I think it's a fundamentally bad idea to introduce
a "wild card" function type that would necessarily conflict with
practically every other possible function declaration.  So regardless
of what use-cases you propose, I'm going to vote against that.

			regards, tom lane