Hello
>>
>> Well, if we're going to consider 100% backwards compatibility a "must",
>> then we should just stick with what the submitted patch does, ie,
>> unqualified names are matched first to query columns, and to parameters
>> only if there's no column match. This is also per spec if I interpreted
>> Peter's comments correctly. The whole thread started because I
>> suggested that throwing an error for ambiguous cases might be a better
>> design in the long run, but apparently long term ease of code
>> maintenance is far down our list of priorities ...
>>
>>
>
> I think the discussion went off into the weeds somewhat, and I'm guilty of
> responding to suggestions that don't refer to the original subject.
>
> For SQL language functions, I think you're right. The only caveat I have is
> that if your function name is very long, having to use it as a
> disambiguating qualifier can be a bit ugly.
same mechanism works well in plpgsql and nobody requested a some
special shortcut.
Regards
Pavel
>
> cheers
>
> andrew
>