functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature
in [PgSql]
|
From: Tom Lane on 28 May 2010 14:36 Josh Berkus <josh(a)agliodbs.com> writes: > Since former SQL Server / Sybase apps are the most likely to use named > parameter notation in PostgreSQL, having a syntax which could be ported > using only "sed" would be nice. I fear you're vastly overestimating the ability of sed to distinguish between = used in this way and = used in any other way. Still, putting the parameter name on the left is clearly both more natural and more like every other product. 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: Tom Lane on 28 May 2010 14:33 Andrew Dunstan <andrew(a)dunslane.net> writes: > Yeah. Whether or not we ever implement it really doesn't matter, IMO. We > should not be in the business of taking an SQL standard piece of syntax > and using it for some other purpose. Evidently the 201x SQL standard has blindsided us twice: first by defining a syntax for named parameters that wasn't like ours, and second by defining a syntax for something else that conflicted with ours. I agree that the AS approach is pretty untenable given that double whammy, and we'd better get rid of it. (Hopefully Peter will be able to keep us better apprised of things in the future.) It seems that we're agreed on trying to use := instead, and the only debate is about whether to deprecate use of => as an operator. But anything that we might do about the latter would reach no farther than the documentation in 9.0 anyway. 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 28 May 2010 15:06 On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 2010/5/28 Tom Lane <tgl(a)sss.pgh.pa.us>: >> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas(a)enterprisedb.com> writes: >>>> Peter Eisentraut<peter_e(a)gmx.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 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: Dimitri Fontaine on 28 May 2010 15:38 Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas(a)enterprisedb.com> writes: > On 28/05/10 19:19, Josh Berkus wrote: >> EXEC dbo.GetItemPrice @ItemCode = 'GXKP', @PriceLevel = 5 > > Once you solve the problem of finding the '='s in the source, replacing them > is exactly the same effort regardless of what you replace them with. I guess it would be a choice of target between 'GXKP' AS ItemCode, 5 AS PriceLevel and ItemCode := 'GXKP', PriceLevel := 5 By the way, as it seems we're voting, I much prefer := than either the AS and => variant, and I'm not keen on seeing us deprecate the operator. Further, as said Andrew, keeping AS conflicting with the standard with no hysterical raisin to do so would be a bad move IMHO. Regards, -- dim -- 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 30 May 2010 10:50
So as far as I can tell, no one is opposed to replacing "expr AS name" with "name := expr" in the named-parameter syntax. Obviously we had better get this done before beta2. Is anyone actually working on the code/docs changes? If not, I'll pick it up. 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 |