| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(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 07:16:19 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTin3j9-fXv3TTG-B0bIlxcsYv2B8gOq-uy9Z-8fg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2010/5/27 Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>:
> 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.
No, standard knows "AS" in different context. In param list standard
doesn't use keyword "AS".
>
>> We can change ir to support new standard or don't change it.
>
> What new standard?
>
ANSI SQL 2011
Pavel
> --
> Heikki Linnakangas
> EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-05-27 07:17:21 | Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature |
| Previous Message | Abhijit Menon-Sen | 2010-05-27 07:15:56 | Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature |