Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature

2010/5/27 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>> On tor, 2010-05-27 at 12:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I'm afraid FOR doesn't work either; it'll create a conflict with the
>>> spec-defined SUBSTRING(x FOR y) syntax.
>
>> How about
>> select myfunc(a := 7, b := 6);
>> ?
>
> Hey, that's a thought.  We couldn't have used that notation before
> because we didn't have := as a separate token, but since I hacked that
> in for plpgsql's benefit, I think it might be an easy fix.  It'd be
> nice that it puts the argument name first like the spec syntax, too.

I can live with it.

Regards

Pavel

>
> Question #1: is the SQL committee likely to standardize that out
> from under us, too?
>
> Question #2: will ecpg have a problem with this?  Or psql for that
> matter (can you have a psql variable named '=')?
>
>                        regards, tom lane
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>