From: Philip Yarra <philip@utiba.com>
Organization: Utiba Pty Ltd
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] pl/pgSQL doco patch
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 09:26:55 +1100
User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2
Cc: pgsql-patches@postgresql.org, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
References: <200511160959.04771.philip@utiba.com>
	<437B44E5.5000200@dunslane.net>
In-Reply-To: <437B44E5.5000200@dunslane.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200511170926.55631.philip@utiba.com>
Utiba-MailScanner-MCPCheck: 

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 01:40 am, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I am wondering we should make this warning more prominent - it would be
> easily missed buried on the Oracle porting section, and I have seen
> people caught by it lots of times.

I added it to the Oracle section because I found this syntax while porting an 
Oracle stored proc to a pl/pgSQL function, and assumed it was an Oracle-ism.

Do other RDBMSs also allow you to qualify function_name.param_name to 
distinguish a param from a column of the same name? If so, sure, I'll put it 
somewhere more general (suggestions?), and Tom, I think that would lend 
weight to allowing PostgreSQL to do it too (not because it's The Right Thing, 
but for interoperability and ease of porting). Thoughts?

Regards, Philip.

-- 

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan

-----------------
Utiba Pty Ltd 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by Utiba mail server and is 
believed to be clean.