Re: pl/pgsql breakage in 8.1b4?

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 02:10 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Without really wishing to volunteer myself: should plpgsql allow using
> > parameters with the same name as the columns being referred to within the
> > function, provided they're qualified as function_name.parameter?
>
> No, because that just changes where the ambiguity is.  The function name
> could easily conflict with a table name.  

Yup, I guess it could. 

> It's a mighty weird-looking 
> convention anyway --- on what grounds would you argue that the function
> is a structure having parameter names as fields?

I wasn't arguing either way, I was just curious. 

Hmmm... is it feasible to make the error message a little more useful? People 
who didn't use the old-style positional parameters might not understand where 
$1 and $2 are coming from.

Regards, Philip.

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