Message-ID: <3C4F31B4.C7C9B2D6@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 16:57:08 -0500
From: Fernando Nasser <fnasser@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat , Inc. - Toronto
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
CC: Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at>,
	pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Schemas vs. PostQUEL: resolving qualified identifiers
References: <46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA42128D9@m0114.s-mxs.net>
	<2521.1011798379@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3C4EFD15.882B0785@redhat.com>
	<4503.1011812400@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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