Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> 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.
> So far the most promising proposal I've seen seems to be to let id
> mean the parameter called id only when it can't refer to anything in
> the query.
> Tabula raza, I'd prefer your proposal to make any ambiguity an error,
> but it's not worth the breakage.
Yeah, I've come round to that position too. I think allowing parameter
names to be checked only after query names is probably the best answer.
> I'd be fine with having a way to
> explicitly request that behavior though, a la Perl's "use strict".
This is possible but it's not clear it's worth the work.
regards, tom lane