| From: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Hannu Krosing" <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: proposal sql: labeled function params |
| Date: | 2008-08-20 13:26:02 |
| Message-ID: | 162867790808200626w40350731gc0602099ce3d8e18@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2008/8/20 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I understand now why Oracle use => symbol for named params. This isn't
>> used so operator - so implementation is trivial.
>
> You really didn't understand the objection at all, did you?
>
> The point is not about whether there is any built-in operator named =>.
> The point is that people might have created user-defined operators named
> that.
I understand well, so only I don't see better solution. Yes, everyone
who used => should have problems, but it is similar with .. new
keywords, etc. Probably easy best syntax doesn't exist :(. I haven't
idea who use => now and how often, and if this feature is possible in
pg, but there are not technical barriers.
regards
Pavel Stehule
>
> regards, tom lane
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2008-08-20 13:31:42 | Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures |
| Previous Message | Kenneth Marshall | 2008-08-20 13:25:24 | Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures |