Re: [HACKERS] Is this really really as designed or defined in some standard

2008/9/2 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> "Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
>> 2008/9/2 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
>>> BTW, there are actually two separate issues here: input parameters and
>>> output parameters. After brief thought it seems like we should enforce
>>> uniqueness of non-omitted parameter names for IN parameters (including
>>> INOUT), and separately enforce uniqueness of non-omitted parameter names
>>> for OUT parameters (including INOUT).
>
>> It's well thought, but I afraid so this can hide some bug, and it's
>> little bit dangerous.
>
>> I thing, so we can simply duplicate values in result then allowing
>> duplicate params in function.
>
> Um ... what? I'm not sure what behavior you're proposing here.
>
> regards, tom lane
>

I am sorry - I really have to learn english. Simply I don't thing, so
duplicit OUT parameters is good idea, but I am haven't strong
objections - some programmer's bugs are visible in this case.

regards
Pavel

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers