Re: pl/pgsql feature request: shorthand for argument and local variable references

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Pavel Stehule
Тема Re: pl/pgsql feature request: shorthand for argument and local variable references
Дата
Msg-id CAFj8pRDJ1mT2VB5N7idGS3BjOF856Nsacq6opSohY68ShWFjUw@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: pl/pgsql feature request: shorthand for argument and local variable references  ("Joel Jacobson" <joel@compiler.org>)
Ответы Re: pl/pgsql feature request: shorthand for argument and local variable references  ("Joel Jacobson" <joel@compiler.org>)
Список pgsql-hackers


čt 6. 1. 2022 v 17:48 odesílatel Joel Jacobson <joel@compiler.org> napsal:
On Thu, Jan 6, 2022, at 17:10, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> I understand well, and I don't think it's nice.
>
> Are there some similar features in other programming languages?

It would be similar to "this" in Javascript/Java/C++,
but instead using "in" to access function parameters.

Currently, we need to prefix the parameter name if it's in conflict with a column name:

CREATE FUNCTION very_long_function_name(id int, some_value text)
RETURNS boolean
LANGUAGE sql AS $$
UPDATE some_table
SET some_value = very_long_function_name.some_value
WHERE id = very_long_function_name.id RETURNING TRUE
$$;

This is cumbersome as function names can be long, and if changing the function name,
you would need to update all occurrences of the function name in the code.

If we could instead refer to the parameters by prefixing them with "in.", we could write:

CREATE FUNCTION very_long_function_name(id int, some_value text)
RETURNS boolean
LANGUAGE sql AS $$
UPDATE some_table
SET some_value = in.some_value
WHERE id = in.id RETURNING TRUE
$$;

I think this would be nice, even if it would only work for IN parameters,
since you seldom need to access OUT parameters in the problematic WHERE-clauses anyway.
I mostly use OUT parameters when setting them on a separate row:
some_out_var := some_value;
...or, when SELECTin INTO an OUT parameter, which wouldn't be a problem.

There is full agreement in a description of the issue. Just I don't like the proposed solution. The word "in '' is not too practical (where there are out, and inout) - and it goes against the philosophy of ADA, where all labels are parametrized (there is not any buildin label). The ADA language has two things that plpgsql has not (unfortunately): a) possibility to modify (configure) compiler by PRAGMA directive, b) possibility to define PRAGMA on more levels - package, function, block. The possibility to define a label dynamically is a better solution (not by some buildin keyword), because it allows some possibility for the end user to define what he prefers. For some cases "in" can be ok, but when you have only two out variables, then "in" looks a little bit strange, and I prefer "fx", other people can prefer  "a" or "args". 

There is no technical problem in the definition of alias of top namespace. The problem is in syntax and in forcing this setting to some set of routines. Theoretically we can have GUC plpgsql.rootns. I can set there "fx", and you can set there "in" and we both can be happy. But the real question is - how to force this setting to all functions. GUC can be overwritten in session, and although you can set this GUC in every  function (by option or by assigned GUC), it is not nice, and somebody can forget about this setting. For me, there are more interesting (important) issues than the possibility to specify the root namespace that can be nice to control. I miss some configuration mechanism independent of GUC that is static (and that emulates static compile options), that can be assigned to database (as synonym for project) or schema (as synonym for module or package). With this mechanism this thread will be significantly shorter, and all discussion about plpgsql2 was not.
 

> you can check it. It is true, so IN is usually followed by "(", but until check I am not able to say if there will be an unwanted
> shift or collision or not.

I checked gram.y, and IN_P is never followed by '.', but not sure if it could cause problems anyway, hope someone with parser knowledge can comment on this.

/Joel

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Corey Huinker
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Suggestion: optionally return default value instead of error on failed cast
Следующее
От: Andrew Dunstan
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Add jsonlog log_destination for JSON server logs