Re: plpgsql: another new reserved word

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Marko Kreen
Тема Re: plpgsql: another new reserved word
Дата
Msg-id e51f66da0711260225w30fca8f4xfb2fcaa09e56cbb4@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: plpgsql: another new reserved word  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: plpgsql: another new reserved word  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On 11/10/07, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> The current plpgsql code seems to be designed to force a qualifier to be
> interpreted as a block label if at all possible, even if there are
> more-closely-nested alternative interpretations; so in the above example
> it would assign to the outer variable bar.  This seems a tad bogus
> to me.  Can anyone comment on how Oracle handles cases like this?

Some googling brought following link:
http://download-uk.oracle.com/docs/cd/B14117_01/appdev.101/b10807/d_names.htm

I have not parsed it completely, but rule seems simple - inner
scope overrides outer one and no magic on unqualified idents,
if ident is unqualified, it wont be matched to schema, block
or some other qualifier.  (well, at least no such magic behaviour
is mentioned.)

-- 
marko


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Simon Riggs
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: 8.3devel slower than 8.2 under read-only load
Следующее
От: Simon Riggs
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Autovacuum and OldestXmin