Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature

From: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
To: alvherre <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: 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: 2010-05-26 23:34:52
Message-ID: 0FFF5551-7836-4815-965D-08E63FC53D48@kineticode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On May 26, 2010, at 4:09 PM, alvherre wrote:

> The problem with the => operator seems best resolved as not accepting
> such an operator in a function parameter, which sucks but we don't seem
> to have a choice. Perhaps we could allow "=>" to resolve as the
> operator for the case the user really needs to use it; or a
> schema-qualified operator.

I think requiring schema-qualification is an acceptable compromise.

Best,

David

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David E. Wheeler 2010-05-26 23:36:34 Re: CIText and pattern_ops
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2010-05-26 23:22:40 Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay