Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
> At 2009-09-16 08:37:40 -0400, andrew@dunslane.net wrote:
>
>> How does this compare with PLSQL?
>>
>
> I don't remember anything of PL/SQL myself, but Pavel Stehule had this
> to say in response to the original post:
>
>
>> This behave is in conflict with PL/SQL, what should do some problems.
>> I thing, so I understand well, why this behave is in PL/SQL. It hasn't
>> sense in plpgsql, because OUT and INOUT params has little bit
>> different syntax (calling) and nobody will do similar bugs (perhaps).
>> What is interesting - this behave is in conformity with SQL/PSM, where
>> parameters are mutable too.
>>
>> I am for it. PL/pgSQL doesn't promise compatibility with PL/SQL and
>> this change should to help some beginners (and this limit is
>> artificial and unnecessary).
>>
>
> Given the existing OUT/INOUT syntax difference as noted, I don't think
> the patch represents a significant problem.
>
>
>
I'm not terribly impressed by either of Pavel's arguments. SQL/PSM is
irrelevant, and the existence of one inconsistency doesn't seems to me
to be a good rationale to create another. If there were a major increase
in utility I would be more willing, but at best this overcomes a minor
inconvenience, that is easily worked around.
It probably won't cause any problem with code being migrated from PLSQL,
but it will affect code going the other way. The question is: do we care
about that? I'm prepared to be persuaded that we shouldn't care, but I'm
not quite there yet.
cheers
andrew