Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature

From: Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)toroid(dot)org>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature
Date: 2010-05-27 07:15:56
Message-ID: 20100527071556.GA8846@toroid.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

At 2010-05-27 08:50:18 +0200, pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com wrote:
>
> I don't see any advantage of "FOR". We can change ir to support new
> standard or don't change it.

Adopting FOR would mean we don't use AS in a way that conflicts with the
standard. That's its only advantage. But I agree with you, I don't think
it's worth inventing a new non-standard wart for this case.

I don't really like the idea of getting rid of => as an operator either;
I'm torn between staying true to the standard and politely looking the
other way as Tom suggested we might end up doing.

-- ams

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2010-05-27 07:16:19 Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature
Previous Message Fujii Masao 2010-05-27 07:13:45 Re: Synchronization levels in SR