| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | alvherre <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature |
| Date: | 2010-05-27 07:12:35 |
| Message-ID: | 4BFE1B63.3070708@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 27/05/10 09:50, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2010/5/27 Heikki Linnakangas<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>:
>> AFAIU, the standard doesn't say anything about named parameters. Oracle uses
>> =>, but as you said, that's ambiguous with the => operator.
>>
>> +1 for FOR.
>
> I don't see any advantage of "FOR".
Any advantage over AS? It doesn't clash with the "foo AS bar" syntax
that the standard is using for something completely different, as Peter
pointed out in the original post.
> We can change ir to support new standard or don't change it.
What new standard?
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2010-05-27 07:13:45 | Re: Synchronization levels in SR |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-05-27 07:09:16 | Re: Synchronization levels in SR |