Re: [INTERFACES] Functions vs. Columns?????

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Byron Nikolaidis <byron(dot)nikolaidis(at)home(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-interfaces(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Functions vs. Columns?????
Date: 2000-02-16 05:12:45
Message-ID: 1304.950677965@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-interfaces

Byron Nikolaidis <byron(dot)nikolaidis(at)home(dot)com> writes:
> Works Doesn't Work
> ------ ------------
> select now(); select now;
> select current_date; select current_date();

> It seems that there should be some consistency here in the use of
> parenthesis.

Consistency? Who needs consistency ;-) ?

What you're seeing here is the conflict of two cultures. The SQL92
standard mandates a keyword CURRENT_DATE, with *no* parentheses,
as the way to get the current date. now() comes out of the Berkeley
Postquel code, which inherits from an academic tradition that doesn't
like inventing reserved words without need, and also thinks that
things that look like constants ought to *be* constants. The way
to resolve that tension, in academese, is to invent parameterless
functions. But the folks who wrote the SQL92 spec seem to have been
raised on COBOL, which never met a reserved word it didn't like.

Anyway, Postgres supports both the SQL92 notation and the notation
we inherited from Postquel. I don't think that adding with-or-
without-parentheses-take-your-pick-for-both syntax freedom would be
a step forward... that path leads to way too many traps for the
unwary programmer.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-interfaces by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Lockhart 2000-02-16 06:04:36 Re: [INTERFACES] Functions vs. Columns?????
Previous Message Joseph Shraibman 2000-02-16 03:26:11 Re: [INTERFACES] DELETEs with jdbc