functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature
in [PgSql]
|
From: Florian Pflug on 31 May 2010 21:24 On Jun 1, 2010, at 0:23 , Tom Lane wrote: > "David E. Wheeler" <david(a)kineticode.com> writes: >> On May 31, 2010, at 8:56 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >>> I don't have strong feelings about the timing - I'd be very surprised if := were to be used in this context for any other purpose, so I don't think we'd be biting ourselves too much by just using that now. But if we do that, we should deprecate use of => as an operator now, and definitely remove its use in hstore either now or in 9.1. > > My feeling is that (a) there is no hurry to do anything about an > unreleased draft of the standard, and (b) perhaps Peter could lobby > the committee to change the standard before it does get published. > > hstore's use of => is pretty well embedded already; waiting another > release or two before breaking things is not going to make it > significantly more painful. There might be some value in providing an alternative operator though, even if there is no definitive plan to deprecate '=>'. hstore gained quite a few new features in 9.0 that might attract new users. If there is even a slight chance that '=>' will be deprecated during the next few releases, it'd be nice to save these users the hassle of migration... For text => text and text[] => text[] I'd propose '||>' as an alternative, since they both combine their arguments, kind of a like a concatenation. For hstore => text[] I'd suggest '&>' since the result's set of keys is the intersection of both argument's key-sets. best regards, Florian Pflug -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Tom Lane on 31 May 2010 23:36 "David E. Wheeler" <david(a)kineticode.com> writes: > On May 31, 2010, at 7:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> I was going to propose ==> across the board. > What about -> ? hstore already uses that for something else. Robert's idea isn't a bad one if we're forced to rename the operator. I'd still like to know exactly how hard the concrete has set on the SQL spec draft, first. (Peter?) regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Robert Haas on 31 May 2010 23:48 On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(a)sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > "David E. Wheeler" <david(a)kineticode.com> writes: >> On May 31, 2010, at 7:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> I was going to propose ==> across the board. > >> What about -> ? > > hstore already uses that for something else. > > Robert's idea isn't a bad one if we're forced to rename the operator. > I'd still like to know exactly how hard the concrete has set on the > SQL spec draft, first. (Peter?) Given the way hstore uses ->, another reasonable choice might be --> That way we'd have -> and --> instead of -> and ==> -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Tom Lane on 31 May 2010 23:51 Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> I'd still like to know exactly how hard the concrete has set on the >> SQL spec draft, first. (Peter?) > I don't know, but based on the fact it matches Oracle, I think it is > pretty well set by now. Eh? The SQL committee has a very long track record of blowing off any and all Oracle syntaxes. If we can point to good reasons to adjust their syntax, they might still listen. Or at least I'd like to hear the opinion of our man on the ground before assuming they won't. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Pavel Stehule on 1 Jun 2010 00:40
2010/6/1 Tom Lane <tgl(a)sss.pgh.pa.us>: > "David E. Wheeler" <david(a)kineticode.com> writes: >> On May 31, 2010, at 7:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> I was going to propose ==> across the board. > >> What about -> ? > > hstore already uses that for something else. > > Robert's idea isn't a bad one if we're forced to rename the operator. > I'd still like to know exactly how hard the concrete has set on the > SQL spec draft, first. Â (Peter?) > I agree with Tom - we are not hurry. Creating some synonym operator for hstore like "==>" can be a good idea. regards Pavel > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â regards, tom lane > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers |