Any opinions which to do, or alternate proposals? I'm leaning
slightly to #2, since I doubt anyone is trying to use "IN" as
a function name, but ...
One addition. The information_schema.parameters view will need to be
updated to reflect parameter names.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.4/static
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> 1. Make param_name equate to type_name (allowing IDENT or
>> unreserved_keyword), and move the following keywords from
>> "unreserved" to "col_name_keyword" status:
>> DOUBLE INOUT NATIONAL OUT
>>
>> 2. Make param_name equate to funct
Tom Lane wrote:
I've been reviewing Dennis Bjorklund's patch to support named
function parameters:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2003-12/msg00176.php
One thing I didn't like about it was that the grammar declared
param_name as plain IDENT, meaning that you could not use even
"unre
