Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature
Date: 2010-05-28 19:06:20
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 2010/5/28 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>>>> Peter Eisentraut<peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>  writes:
>>>>> How about
>>>>> select myfunc(a := 7, b := 6);
>>> If we go with that, should we make some preparations to allow => in the
>>> future? Like provide an alternative operator name for hstore's =>, and
>>> add a note somewhere in the docs to discourage other modules from using =>.
>> I'd vote no.  We're intentionally choosing to deviate from a very poor
>> choice of notation.  Maybe Peter can interest the committee in allowing
>> := as an alternate notation, instead.
> -1
> I prefer a standard. And again - it isn't poor syntax - ADA, Perl use
> it, It can be a funny if ANSI SQL committee change some design from
> Oracle's proposal to PostgreSQL's proposal.

I agree.  It's good syntax.  I think we should try hard to adopt it.

Robert Haas
The Enterprise Postgres Company

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Dimitri FontaineDate: 2010-05-28 19:20:14
Subject: Re: Failback with log shipping
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-05-28 19:03:38
Subject: Re: How to pass around collation information

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group