Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax
От | Pavel Stehule |
---|---|
Тема | Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFj8pRDL2Y7xp_uFMHLzFxVaEnmwcChL1ha-4dKGTy490q+B-Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
2013/5/2 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Marko Tiikkaja <marko@joh.to> writes:That's a really good point: if you follow this approach then you're
> What I'm more interested in is: how can we make this feature work in
> PL/PgSQL where OLD means something different?
creating fundamental conflicts for use of the feature in trigger
functions or rules, which will necessarily have conflicting uses of
those names. Yeah, we could define scoping rules such that there's
an unambiguous interpretation, but then the user is just out of luck
if he wants to reference the other definition. (This problem is
probably actually worse if you implement with reserved words rather
than aliases.)
I'm thinking it would be better to invent some other notation for access
to old-row values.
I am not sure, but I am thinking so NEW and OLD are used in some statements and features ANSI SQL 2012, so probably we should to do keywords from these words if we would to support modern ANSI SQL
Regards
Pavel
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: