| From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: proposal sql: labeled function params |
| Date: | 2008-08-22 19:31:22 |
| Message-ID: | 1219433482.7020.5.camel@huvostro |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 23:41 -0500, Decibel! wrote:
> On Aug 20, 2008, at 8:26 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> How about we poll -general and see what people say? I'll bet Tom a
> beer that no one replies saying they've created a => operator (unless
> maybe PostGIS uses it).
Does Oracle use => for "labeled function params" or just named
arguments ?
> If we're really worried about it we can have a GUC for a few versions
> that turns off named parameter assignment. But I don't think we
> should compromise the design on the theory that some folks might be
> using that as an operator *and* can't change their application to
> wrap it's use in ().
I still think that better approach is allowing RECORD as input type and
do all the things Pavel proposed with a function that iterates over
record.
--------------
Hannu
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2008-08-22 20:03:16 | Re: proposal sql: labeled function params |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2008-08-22 19:28:09 | Re: [GENERAL] Surprising syntax error |