Re: mixed, named notation support

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> writes:
>> Here again a patch version with updated documentation. I will stop
>> reviewing this patch now and mark this ready for committer, so we have some
>> time left to incorporate additional feedback.
>
> I'm starting to look at this now, and my very first reaction was
> "what in the world is a leaky list?".  I'm not sure I like the
> data structure itself, but the terminology is certainly completely
> unhelpful.  Can't you come up with something better than
> "continuous/leaky"?

Stepping back a bit, are we sure this is a feature we even want to
support? It was already pointed out in the thread on "Parser's hook
based on funccall" that SQL:201x may standardize => for this purpose.
I realize that's a problem because of the possibility of a
user-defined operator named =>, but aren't we usually reluctant to
adopt syntax that is thought likely to be incompatible with current or
future SQL standards?

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-07/msg01715.php

...Robert