Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature
Date: 2010-05-31 16:14:12
Message-ID: 201005311614.o4VGECG09851@momjian.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2010/5/31 Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>:
> > Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >> >> Part of the earlier discussion was about how => was a tempting
> >> >> operator name and other users may well have chosen it precisely
> >> >> because it's so evocative. But we don't actually have any evidence of
> >> >> that. Does anyone have any experience seeing => operators in the wild?
> >> >
> >> > Tangentially, I think the SQL committee chose => because the value, then
> >> > variable, ordering is so unintuitive, and I think they wanted that
> >> > ordering because most function calls use values so they wanted the
> >> > variable at the end.
> >>
> >> maybe, maybe not. Maybe just adopt Oracle's syntax - nothing more,
> >> nothing less - like like some others.
> >
> > Yea, definitely they were copying Oracle. ?My point is that the odd
> > ordering does make sense, and the use of an arrow-like operator also
> > makes sense because of the odd ordering.
> >
> 
> What I know - this feature is supported only by Oracle and MSSQL now.
> MSSQL syntax isn't available, because expected @ before variables. So
> there is available only Oracle's syntax. It is some like industrial
> standard.

MSSQL?  Are you sure?  This is the example posted in this thread:

	EXEC dbo.GetItemPrice @ItemCode = 'GXKP', @PriceLevel = 5

and it more matches our := syntax than => in its argument ordering.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + None of us is going to be here forever. +


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2010-05-31 16:14:32
Subject: Re: PG 9.0 release timetable
Previous:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2010-05-31 16:03:40
Subject: Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group