Re: Shall we just get rid of plpgsql's RENAME?
От | Greg Stark |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Shall we just get rid of plpgsql's RENAME? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 407d949e0911050335sa81635bt8170847f3071c708@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Shall we just get rid of plpgsql's RENAME? (Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>) |
Ответы |
Re: Shall we just get rid of plpgsql's RENAME?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> >> According to >> >> http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/plpgsql-declarations.html#PLPGSQL-DECLARATION-RENAMING-VARS >> the RENAME declaration in plpgsql has been known broken since PG 7.3. >> Nobody has bothered to fix it. Shall we just rip it out? > > +1 on that - I don't think I have seen it used in any production code I came > accross in a long time. I'm fine with just ripping it out. Making it an alias for ALIAS seems tempting at first but I can't say how often I've found constructs like that confusing in languages and interfaces because the natural assumption is that there must be some kind of distinction between the terms. In the long term it makes things way simpler to understand if there aren't redundancies like that. Did we get the keyword from anyplace? Is it an Oracleism or MSSQLism or anything? -- greg
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: