Re: Schemas vs. PostQUEL: resolving qualified identifiers

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: Schemas vs. PostQUEL: resolving qualified identifiers
Дата
Msg-id 4503.1011812400@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Schemas vs. PostQUEL: resolving qualified identifiers  (Fernando Nasser <fnasser@redhat.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Fernando Nasser <fnasser@redhat.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Okay, but then how will you refer unambiguously to the rowtype object?

> What about casting with the keyord ROW?
> func(ROW table) 
> always refers to the row-type of table "table" even if there is
> a column called "table".

Strikes me as gratuituously different from the way everything else is
done.  We have .* and %ROWTYPE and so forth, and they're all suffixes.
The closest analogy to your ROW syntax is CAST, but it doesn't alter the
initial interpretation of its argument.

I was toying with the notion of inventing some new notation liketable.**
I don't like double-asterisk much, but maybe there's some other symbol
we could use here?
        regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Bruce Momjian
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem