Re: proposal sql: labeled function params

On Sat, 2008-08-23 at 08:21 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Hello
>
> 2008/8/22 Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>:
> > On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 23:41 -0500, Decibel! wrote:
> >> On Aug 20, 2008, at 8:26 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >
> >> How about we poll -general and see what people say? I'll bet Tom a
> >> beer that no one replies saying they've created a => operator (unless
> >> maybe PostGIS uses it).
> >
> > Does Oracle use => for "labeled function params" or just named
> > arguments ?
> >
>
> Oracle use it for named arguments - what I know, similar it doesn't
> allow functionality as labeled params publicly - SQL/XML use it.
>
> >> If we're really worried about it we can have a GUC for a few versions
> >> that turns off named parameter assignment. But I don't think we
> >> should compromise the design on the theory that some folks might be
> >> using that as an operator *and* can't change their application to
> >> wrap it's use in ().
> >
> > I still think that better approach is allowing RECORD as input type and
> > do all the things Pavel proposed with a function that iterates over
> > record.
> >
>
> record or hash table - it's implementation - second step. We have to
> find syntax and semantic now.

Why not just use some standard record syntax, like

SELECT(value::type name, ...)

or perhaps some extended ROW() or VALUES() syntax ?

Like this :
SELECT * FROM FUNC(SELECT(value::type name, ...) AS r);

-----------------
Hannu