Re: named parameters in SQL functions

Robert Haas wrote:
>> (But having said that, an alternate qualification name is something
>> that could be implemented if there were any agreement on what to use.)
>>     
>
> Well that is the tricky part, for sure.  I would personally prefer
> something like ${name} rather than a prefix, but I think you're likely
> to veto that outright.  So, anything reasonably short would be an
> improvement over the status quo.  self?  this?  my?
>
>
>   
I think it would have to be a reserved word. The obvious existing 
keyword to use is "function" but unless I'm mistaken we'd need to move 
it from unreserved keyword to reserved, and I'm not sure this would 
justify that.

cheers

andrew