| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Mike Fowler <mike(at)mlfowler(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Initial review of xslt with no limits patch |
| Date: | 2010-08-06 21:25:11 |
| Message-ID: | 33BF86D1-F03E-4B48-AD30-8302749E6D6F@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Aug 6, 2010, at 2:12 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> SELECT foo('this' ~> 'that', 1 ~> 4);
>>
>> Not bad, I think. I kind of like it. It reminds me how much I hate the % hstore construction operator, though (the new name for =>).
>
> so there is only small step to proposed feature
>
> SELECT foo(this := 'that', "1" := 4)
>
> there is only one difference (but you cannot implement it now)
> * notation for key is same like for sql identifier - why: I would to
> clearly identify key and value. When I use a custom operator - like
> you did, it depends on implementation what is key, what is value. When
> you use a SQL identifier's notation for key, you can't to do a error
Sorry, not following you here…
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-06 21:46:07 | Re: gincostestimate |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-08-06 21:13:39 | Re: MERGE Specification |