Re: proposal sql: labeled function params

2008/8/23 Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>:
> 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);
>

do you thing, so is it simpler?

Pavel

> -----------------
> Hannu
>
>
>