| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: proposal: disallow operator "=>" and use it for named parameters |
| Date: | 2015-03-10 16:01:35 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRDqAdDGMB24uRggirRVyG--5VjxXtdaBysSZ-q4S0jVOA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2015-03-10 16:50 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >> I am marking this as Ready For Committer, the patch is trivial and works
> >> as expected, there is nothing to be added to it IMHO.
> >>
> >> The "=>" operator was deprecated for several years so it should not be
> too
> >> controversial either.
>
> > Committed with a few documentation tweaks.
>
> Was there any consideration given to whether ruleutils should start
> printing NamedArgExprs with "=>"? Or do we think that needs to wait?
>
I didn't think about it? I don't see any reason why it have to use
deprecated syntax.
Regards
Pavel
>
> regards, tom lane
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2015-03-10 16:07:29 | Re: proposal: searching in array function - array_position |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-03-10 15:54:23 | Re: Stateful C-language function with state managed by third-party library |