Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> So as far as I can tell, no one is opposed to replacing "expr AS name"
> >> with "name := expr" in the named-parameter syntax. Obviously we had
> >> better get this done before beta2. Is anyone actually working on the
> >> code/docs changes? If not, I'll pick it up.
>
> > If we eventually are going to want to support the ANSI standard "=>"
> > syntax, I am thinking we should just do it now. The larger question is
> > what justification do we have of not supporting "=>".
>
> Not breaking hstore, as well as any third-party modules that might be
> using that operator name. Did you not absorb any of the discussion
> so far?

Yes, but if we are going to have to honor "=>" eventually, shouldn't we
just do it now? Supporting := and => seems confusing.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com