Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
> <dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote:
>> Unless we make it so that no such version ever exists. �Meaning that the
>> code works fine as is or using WHERE id = developer_lookup.id. �AS id
>> can't ever be the parameter in this case, you're just fine.
>>
>> Bearing in mind that $1 etc shortcuts still are available, I don't
>> really see this qualification of parameter names with function names so
>> big a problem that we should find a way to avoid it and risk breaking
>> compatibility.
>>
>> Don't forget that any ambiguity here will mean *huge* migration costs.
> If I'm reading your email correctly, we're in agreement.
Hmm, what I read Dimitri to be proposing is that we *require* parameter
names to be qualified with the function name. I don't recall hearing
that before. It would solve the problem perhaps, but I think the moans
and groans will be numerous.
regards, tom lane