Re: WIP: Allow SQL-language functions to reference parameters by parameter name
Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
From: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
To: "David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.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: 2011-04-05T16:21:20Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:05 PM, David E. Wheeler <david@kineticode.com> wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2011, at 9:12 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>>
>> As I've said before, I believe that the root cause of this problem is
>> that using the same syntax for variables and column names is a bad
>> idea in the first place. If we used $foo or ?foo or ${foo} or $.foo
>> or &&foo!!$#? to mean "the parameter called foo", then this would all
>> be a non-issue.
>
> Yes *please*. Man that would make maintenance of such functions easier.
+1 on using $foo. Even with the standardization risk I think it's the
best choice. Prefer $"foo" to ${foo} though.
merlin