From: Fernando Nasser <fnasser@redhat.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Schemas vs. PostQUEL: resolving qualified identifiers
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 16:57:08 -0500
Message-ID: <3C4F31B4.C7C9B2D6@redhat.com> (raw)
References: <46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA42128D9@m0114.s-mxs.net>
<2521.1011798379@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<3C4EFD15.882B0785@redhat.com>
<4503.1011812400@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Fernando Nasser <fnasser@redhat.com> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Okay, but then how will you refer unambiguously to the rowtype object?
>
> > What about casting with the keyord ROW?
> > func(ROW table)
> > always refers to the row-type of table "table" even if there is
> > a column called "table".
>
> Strikes me as gratuituously different from the way everything else is
> done. We have .* and %ROWTYPE and so forth, and they're all suffixes.
> The closest analogy to your ROW syntax is CAST, but it doesn't alter the
> initial interpretation of its argument.
>
I didn't mean literally that way, I just wanted to add a keyword for
solving ambiguity (when there is one).
You are right, it should be:
func(table%ROWTYPE)
--
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat - Toronto E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: fnasser@redhat.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, ZeugswetterA@spardat.at
Subject: Re: Schemas vs. PostQUEL: resolving qualified identifiers
In-Reply-To: <3C4F31B4.C7C9B2D6@redhat.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox