On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 2010/5/28 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>>>> Peter Eisentraut<peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>>>>> How about
>>>>> select myfunc(a := 7, b := 6);
>>> If we go with that, should we make some preparations to allow => in the
>>> future? Like provide an alternative operator name for hstore's =>, and
>>> add a note somewhere in the docs to discourage other modules from using =>.
>> I'd vote no. We're intentionally choosing to deviate from a very poor
>> choice of notation. Maybe Peter can interest the committee in allowing
>> := as an alternate notation, instead.
> I prefer a standard. And again - it isn't poor syntax - ADA, Perl use
> it, It can be a funny if ANSI SQL committee change some design from
> Oracle's proposal to PostgreSQL's proposal.
I agree. It's good syntax. I think we should try hard to adopt it.
The Enterprise Postgres Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Dimitri Fontaine||Date: 2010-05-28 19:20:14|
|Subject: Re: Failback with log shipping|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-05-28 19:03:38|
|Subject: Re: How to pass around collation information|