Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Chernow <ac@esilo.com> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> (But having said that, an alternate qualification name is something
>>> that could be implemented if there were any agreement on what to use.)
>
>> Would something like ARG.name be acceptable?
>
> It all depends on how likely you think it is that the function would use
> a table name or alias matching ARG (or any other proposal).
>
> It's certainly true that the function name itself is not immune from
> conflicts of that sort ... in fact I think we saw a bug report recently
> from someone who had intentionally chosen a plpgsql function name equal
> to a table name used in the function :-(. So I'm not wedded to the
> function name entirely. But it has precedent in plpgsql, and that
> precedent came from Oracle, so I don't think we should lightly make SQL
> functions do something different.
>
If the concern is portability, (ANYTHING).name won't work. You would have to
stick with function.name or support both styles.
--
Andrew Chernow
eSilo, LLC
every bit counts
http://www.esilo.com/