| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Royce Ausburn <royce(dot)ml(at)inomial(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: [REVIEW] Patch for cursor calling with named parameters |
| Date: | 2011-10-06 17:51:25 |
| Message-ID: | DB8FC58A-4C21-4C43-BC44-8EB76F40394E@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Oct 6, 2011, at 10:46 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Okay. I kind of like := so there's no rush AFAIC. :-)
>
> Hmm ... actually, that raises another issue that I'm not sure whether
> there's consensus for or not. Are we intending to keep name := value
> syntax forever, as an alternative to the standard name => value syntax?
> I can't immediately see a reason not to, other than the "it's not
> standard" argument.
The only reason it would be required, I think, is if the SQL standard developed some other use for that operator.
> Because if we *are* going to keep it forever, there's no very good
> reason why we shouldn't accept this plpgsql cursor patch now. We'd
> just have to remember to extend plpgsql to take => at the same time
> we do that for core function calls.
Makes sense.
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-10-06 17:52:50 | Re: [REVIEW] Patch for cursor calling with named parameters |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-10-06 17:46:54 | Re: [REVIEW] Patch for cursor calling with named parameters |