Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 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?
>

In fairness most of the discussion about breaking hstore was prior to
our learning that the sql committee had gone so far into the weeds.

If => is sql standard syntax then perhaps that changes the calculus.
It's no longer a matter of supporting some oracle-specific syntax that
diverges from sqlish syntax and conflicts with our syntax. Instead
it's a question of our operator syntax conflicting with the sql
standard.

Part of the earlier discussion was about how => was a tempting
operator name and other users may well have chosen it precisely
because it's so evocative. But we don't actually have any evidence of
that. Does anyone have any experience seeing => operators in the wild?

--
greg