Re: Schemas vs. PostQUEL: resolving qualified identifiers
От | Fernando Nasser |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Schemas vs. PostQUEL: resolving qualified identifiers |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3C4F31B4.C7C9B2D6@redhat.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Schemas vs. PostQUEL: resolving qualified identifiers ("Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: