"Joel Burton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> ISTM the reason we've not addressed this for so long is that no one
>> could think of a reasonable way to solve it on the backend side.
>> Maybe we just have to shift our focus.
> Out of curiosity, Tom, why the pref
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> "Joel Burton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Given that 98% of my function defining is done is psql, this would be
> > fine for me and solve my frustrations. It wouldn't help people that
> > build functions in scripting languages or non-psql environments,
> >
"Joel Burton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Given that 98% of my function defining is done is psql, this would be
> fine for me and solve my frustrations. It wouldn't help people that
> build functions in scripting languages or non-psql environments,
> however, but I don't know how common this is.
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Seems like the only way to do that in the backend would be to find a way
> of slipping the function text past the lexer/parser entirely. While I
> can imagine ways of doing that, I think it'd be a *whole* lot cleaner
> to fix things on the client side.
>
> H
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Joel Burton writes:
>> Is there any standardized way of handling the single-quotes within function
>> definition? Rather than doubling them up (which can make for very messy code
>> when your scripting language uses single quotes!), allowing another s
On Fri, 17 May 2002 09:57:39 -0400, "Joel Burton"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Peter Eisentraut [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 9:37 AM
>> To: Joel Burton
>> Cc: PostgreSQL Development
>
Joel Burton writes:
> Is there any standardized way of handling the single-quotes within function
> definition? Rather than doubling them up (which can make for very messy code
> when your scripting language uses single quotes!), allowing another symbol
> to be used, with that symbol be declared
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Eisentraut [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 9:37 AM
> To: Joel Burton
> Cc: PostgreSQL Development
> Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Updated CREATE FUNCTION syntax
>
>
> Joel Burton writes:
>
> > Is th
Joel Burton wrote:
>
> > As per earlier vague hint, I'm bringing the CREATE FUNCTION syntax in line
> > with SQL99. Everything is fully backward compatible. Here is the new
> > synopsis:
> >
> > CREATE [OR REPLACE] FUNCTION name (args) RETURNS type
> > option [ option... ] [WITH (...)];
> >
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Peter Eisentraut
> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 1:22 PM
> To: PostgreSQL Development
> Subject: [HACKERS] Updated CREATE FUNCTION syntax
>
>
> As per earlier vague hi
As per earlier vague hint, I'm bringing the CREATE FUNCTION syntax in line
with SQL99. Everything is fully backward compatible. Here is the new
synopsis:
CREATE [OR REPLACE] FUNCTION name (args) RETURNS type
option [ option... ] [WITH (...)];
where option is any of these in any order:
AS st
11 matches
Mail list logo
