Re: TABLE-function patch vs plpgsql

"Marko Kreen" <markokr@gmail.com> writes:
> On 7/18/08, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> 1. It's ludicrous to argue that "standards compliance" requires the
>> behavior-as-submitted.  plpgsql is not specified by the SQL standard.

> Yes, but it would be a good feature addition to plpgsql.
> Currently there is no way to suppress the local variable
> creation.  The proposed behaviour would give that possibility.

Why would anyone consider that a "feature"?

>> 2. Not having the parameter names available means that you don't have
>> access to their types either, which is a big problem for polymorphic
>> functions.

> This does not make sense as Postgres does not support
> polymorphic table columns...

No, but it certainly supports polymorphic function output parameters,
and that's what these really are.

> I think thats the point - it should not be just syntactic sugar for
> OUT parameters, let it be different.

Why?  All you're doing is proposing that we deliberately cripple
the semantics.
        regards, tom lane