Re: named parameters in SQL functions

On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
> 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.

I don't see why it would need to be a reserved word.  We're not
changing how it gets parsed, just what it means.  At any rate
"FUNCTION." is a 9-character prefix, which is rather longer than I
would prefer.  PL/pgsql is a tiresomely long-winded language in
general, IMHO, although some of Tom's changes for 8.5 will help with
that.

...Robert