Re: proposal: disallow operator "=>" and use it for named parameters

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Was there any consideration given to whether ruleutils should start
>> printing NamedArgExprs with "=>"? Or do we think that needs to wait?

> I have to admit that I didn't consider that. What do you think? I
> guess I'd be tentatively in favor of changing that to match, but I
> could be convinced otherwise.

Well, as said upthread, the argument for not changing would be that it
would make it easier to dump views and reload them into older PG versions.
I'm not sure how big a consideration that is, or whether it outweighs
possible cross-DBMS compatibility benefits of dumping the more standard
syntax. Presumably we are going to change it at some point; maybe we
should just do it rather than waiting another 5 years.

IOW, I guess I lean mildly towards changing, but I've been beaten up
enough lately about backwards-compatibility worries that I'm not going
to fight for changing this.

regards, tom lane