| From: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Grzegorz Jaskiewicz" <gj(at)pointblue(dot)com(dot)pl>, "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: default values for function parameters |
| Date: | 2008-12-09 16:09:50 |
| Message-ID: | 162867790812090809r321a44e9pcdf61c524ff4e1be@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> How would a user recognise which of these are legal operator names?
>
> Incidentally -- EDB selling Oracle compatibility may put me in a questionable
> position here -- the more Oracle incompatibilities in stock Postgres the
> better for us. But afaik we don't emulate => anyways so that hardly matters.
> If anything it shows how unimportant it is to worry about being compatible on
> this front.
>
I don't search compatibility - just searching any good syntax. And
Oracle used wide used syntax - from Ada, Perl. - It isn't Oracle
patent or Oracle design. And named params hasn't big sense without
default params. So now is time for speaking about it.
look on ADA http://archive.adaic.com/standards/83rat/html/ratl-08-03.html
PL/pgSQL < PL/SQL < ADA so using '=>' is only consistent and natural.
And it is my goal.
Regards
Pavel Stehule
> --
> Gregory Stark
> EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
> Get trained by Bruce Momjian - ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostgreSQL training!
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-12-09 16:12:25 | Re: SQL/MED compatible connection manager |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-12-09 16:09:37 | Re: Multiplexing SUGUSR1 |