Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature

Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of mié may 26 18:52:33 -0400 2010:

> I think we should fix it now. Quick thought: maybe we could use FOR
> instead of AS: select myfunc(7 for a, 6 for b); IIRC the standard's
> mechanism for this is 'paramname => value', but I think that has
> problems because of our possibly use of => as an operator - otherwise
> that would be by far the best way to go.

I think we were refraining from => because the standard didn't specify
this back then -- AFAIU this was introduced very recently. But now that
it does, and that the syntax we're implementing conflicts with a
different feature, it seems wise to use the standard-mandated syntax.

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.

--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support