| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature |
| Date: | 2010-06-01 03:44:39 |
| Message-ID: | 201006010344.o513idX28605@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> "David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
> > On May 31, 2010, at 7:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> I was going to propose ==> across the board.
>
> > What about -> ?
>
> hstore already uses that for something else.
>
> Robert's idea isn't a bad one if we're forced to rename the operator.
> I'd still like to know exactly how hard the concrete has set on the
> SQL spec draft, first. (Peter?)
I don't know, but based on the fact it matches Oracle, I think it is
pretty well set by now.
If we can't come up with a good syntax (and there isn't an SQL standard
for it), we often review how Oracle or other databases handle such
cases, and my guess is that the SQL committee does the same thing.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ None of us is going to be here forever. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-06-01 03:48:58 | Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-06-01 03:36:03 | Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature |