| From: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Hannu Krosing" <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: proposal sql: labeled function params |
| Date: | 2008-08-23 15:50:48 |
| Message-ID: | 162867790808230850h226b90a3gc38301498b39ed8b@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello
2008/8/23 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>:
> On Friday 22 August 2008 07:41:30 Decibel! wrote:
>> 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 ().
>
> Even if that were a reasonable strategy, you can't use GUC parameters to alter
> parser behavior.
>
I thing, so it's possible - in this case. We should transform named
params to expr after syntax analyze.
Pavel
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2008-08-23 16:04:42 | Re: [HACKERS] WITH RECURSIVE patches 0818 |
| Previous Message | D'Arcy J.M. Cain | 2008-08-23 14:12:27 | Re: Proposal: new border setting in psql |