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

Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature

From: Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature
Date: 2010-05-31 19:06:38
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> it's not important in this discussion. Important is using some usual
> symbol '=' or special symbol '=>'. Our syntax is probably only one
> possible solution in this moment (there are minimum controversy), bud
> semantic isn't best. Using same operator as assign statement uses can
> be messy. I don't know what is a true - you have to ask of ADA
> designers.

Well you assign a value to a named parameter, so I don't see the point.

Now SELECT myfunc(a := 1, b => 2); is about fine, the only point is that
the => operator looks good for associative things such as hstore, so
chances that it has been used are not so low.

I guess we could choose to go with := for 9.1 and revisit the =>
situation after the SQL standard has settled on the new version. Maybe
this move would even have some impact now that we have a voice over


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jesper KroghDate: 2010-05-31 19:52:40
Subject: bitmap-index-scan faster than seq-scan on full-table-scan (gin index)
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-05-31 19:01:26
Subject: Re: fillfactor gets set to zero for toast tables

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