Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Yeah. Whether or not we ever implement it really doesn't matter, IMO. We
> should not be in the business of taking an SQL standard piece of syntax
> and using it for some other purpose.
Evidently the 201x SQL standard has blindsided us twice: first by
defining a syntax for named parameters that wasn't like ours, and second
by defining a syntax for something else that conflicted with ours.
I agree that the AS approach is pretty untenable given that double
whammy, and we'd better get rid of it. (Hopefully Peter will be able
to keep us better apprised of things in the future.)
It seems that we're agreed on trying to use := instead, and the only
debate is about whether to deprecate use of => as an operator. But
anything that we might do about the latter would reach no farther than
the documentation in 9.0 anyway.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-05-28 18:36:02|
|Subject: Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature |
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2010-05-28 18:04:40|
|Subject: Re: VPATH docs|