On 29/12/12 10:19, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 12/28/12 11:22 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> I am not sure, but maybe is time to introduce ANSI SQL syntax for
>> functions' named parameters
>> It is defined in ANSI SQL 2011
>> CALL P (B => 1, A => 2)
>> instead PostgreSQL syntax CALL ( B := 1, A := 2)
> I agree it's probably time.
>> * should we support both - probably yes
>> * how long time we will support pg syntax? - 2..5..ever years
>> * when we mark pg syntax as obsolete?
>> * when we remove pg syntax?
> The := syntax was introduced in 9.0, so it is by now well entrenched. I
> don't think we should remove it at all any time soon.
> As for documentation, just state how it is. The standard syntax is =>,
> but because of $various_issues, older versions only support :=.
To be honest I prefer *:=* as it looks neater than *=>*, in part because
I first saw that notation when I was learning ALGOL 60 and liked the
justification they gave in the manual.
In fact I find *=>* ugly and counter intuitive as I keep having the
feeling that it points the wrong way, because *A => 2* suggests to me
that you are setting '2' to the value of 'A' which is plain daft!
I am sure there are worse standardisation formats - but for some reason,
I find this one disproportionately irritating! :-)
So I would much prefer to keep the old format, if at all possible.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2012-12-28 21:53:59|
|Subject: Re: dynamic SQL - possible performance regression in 9.2|
|Previous:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2012-12-28 21:19:57|
|Subject: Re: proposal: ANSI SQL 2011 syntax for named parameters|