| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | André Fernandes <andre(dot)de(dot)camargo(dot)fernandes(at)hotmail(dot)com>, heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, arhipov(at)dc(dot)baikal(dot)ru, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Name column |
| Date: | 2010-09-24 16:10:54 |
| Message-ID: | 4864.1285344654@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> So? There are lots of surprising things in SQL. And *of course* the
>> only complaints come from people who didn't know about it, not from
>> satisfied users.
> I guess that's true, but is this behavior specified in or required by
> any SQL standard? Are there other database products that also support
> this syntax? Or is this just our own invention?
It's a holdover from PostQUEL, I think, but it's still useful. I
observe that SQL:2008 has added a significantly-uglier-than-this feature
for computed columns, so there's certainly use cases out there.
> I think it's because it's counterintuitive.
From an object-oriented-programming standpoint it seems entirely
intuitive. Many OOP languages minimize the notational difference
between members and methods of a class.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-24 16:16:09 | Re: Name column |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-09-24 16:03:14 | Re: Name column |