From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature |
Date: | 2010-05-28 14:08:47 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTin9lIrOnxOrOH-rzSYvImgMRAs5kVEQwStD43pk@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2010/5/28 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>>> Peter Eisentraut<peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>>>> How about
>>>> select myfunc(a := 7, b := 6);
>
>> If we go with that, should we make some preparations to allow => in the
>> future? Like provide an alternative operator name for hstore's =>, and
>> add a note somewhere in the docs to discourage other modules from using =>.
>
> I'd vote no. We're intentionally choosing to deviate from a very poor
> choice of notation. Maybe Peter can interest the committee in allowing
> := as an alternate notation, instead.
-1
I prefer a standard. And again - it isn't poor syntax - ADA, Perl use
it, It can be a funny if ANSI SQL committee change some design from
Oracle's proposal to PostgreSQL's proposal.
Regards
Pavel
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-05-28 14:19:02 | Re: [9.1] pg_stat_get_backend_server_addr |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-05-28 13:47:20 | Re: Working with PostgreSQL enums in C code |