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