functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature
in [PgSql]
|
From: Pavel Stehule on 31 May 2010 10:26 2010/5/31 Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us>: > Tom Lane wrote: >> 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. > > If we eventually are going to want to support the ANSI standard "=>" > syntax, I am thinking we should just do it now.  The larger question is > what justification do we have of not supporting "=>". I am for ANSI stanadard. I afraid so we can do nothing now. First we have to implement substitution of "=>" operator in hstore module. Second we have to mark this operator as deprecated. Maybe we can do it in 9.1 with integration of hstore to core. I would to see any hash table support in core. It can be significant help for PLpgSQL coders. What more - it can work nice with proposed JSON support. Regards Pavel > > -- >  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(a)momjian.us>     http://momjian.us >  EnterpriseDB               http://enterprisedb.com > > -- > 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
From: Tom Lane on 31 May 2010 10:59 Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> 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. > If we eventually are going to want to support the ANSI standard "=>" > syntax, I am thinking we should just do it now. The larger question is > what justification do we have of not supporting "=>". Not breaking hstore, as well as any third-party modules that might be using that operator name. Did you not absorb any of the discussion so far? 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 31 May 2010 11:07 2010/5/31 Tom Lane <tgl(a)sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> writes: >> Tom Lane wrote: >>> So as far as I can tell, no one is opposed to replacing "expr AS name" >>> with "name := expr" in the named-parameter syntax. Â Obviously we had >>> better get this done before beta2. Â Is anyone actually working on the >>> code/docs changes? Â If not, I'll pick it up. > >> If we eventually are going to want to support the ANSI standard "=>" >> syntax, I am thinking we should just do it now. Â The larger question is >> what justification do we have of not supporting "=>". > > Not breaking hstore, as well as any third-party modules that might be > using that operator name. Â Did you not absorb any of the discussion > so far? > can we search thise applications? I know only about hstore module. We can ask people who use it in own applications. But every major version of PostgreSQL can breaks compatibility - like 9.0 with variable names in plpgsql. 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
From: Tom Lane on 31 May 2010 11:24 Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> writes: > Yes, but if we are going to have to honor "=>" eventually, shouldn't we > just do it now? Supporting := and => seems confusing. Personally, I haven't accepted the "if" part of that, therefore I feel no need to argue over the "then". 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: Greg Stark on 31 May 2010 11:41
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(a)sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Not breaking hstore, as well as any third-party modules that might be > using that operator name. Did you not absorb any of the discussion > so far? > In fairness most of the discussion about breaking hstore was prior to our learning that the sql committee had gone so far into the weeds. If => is sql standard syntax then perhaps that changes the calculus. It's no longer a matter of supporting some oracle-specific syntax that diverges from sqlish syntax and conflicts with our syntax. Instead it's a question of our operator syntax conflicting with the sql standard. Part of the earlier discussion was about how => was a tempting operator name and other users may well have chosen it precisely because it's so evocative. But we don't actually have any evidence of that. Does anyone have any experience seeing => operators in the wild? -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers |