functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature
in [PgSql]
|
From: Bruce Momjian on 31 May 2010 11:47 Greg Stark wrote: > 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? Tangentially, I think the SQL committee chose => because the value, then variable, ordering is so unintuitive, and I think they wanted that ordering because most function calls use values so they wanted the variable at the end. -- 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
From: Tom Lane on 31 May 2010 11:52 Greg Stark <gsstark(a)mit.edu> writes: > If => is sql standard syntax then perhaps that changes the calculus. Well, it *isn't* standard, yet at least. All we have is a report of the current wording of a draft that's at least a year from release. 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 11:55 2010/5/31 Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us>: > Greg Stark wrote: >> 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? > > Tangentially, I think the SQL committee chose => because the value, then > variable, ordering is so unintuitive, and I think they wanted that > ordering because most function calls use values so they wanted the > variable at the end. maybe, maybe not. Maybe just adopt Oracle's syntax - nothing more, nothing less - like like some others. 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: Andrew Dunstan on 31 May 2010 11:56 Tom Lane wrote: > 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". > > > OK, but if that's going to influence the decision, let's debate it. I think we should aim to comply with the spec, and incidentally be compatible with Oracle too. => is used by a number of other languages, for this or a similar purpose, so it would feel a bit more intuitive and familiar to some people. 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. cheers andrew -- 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 12:03
2010/5/31 Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us>: > Pavel Stehule wrote: >> >> 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? >> > >> > Tangentially, I think the SQL committee chose => because the value, then >> > variable, ordering is so unintuitive, and I think they wanted that >> > ordering because most function calls use values so they wanted the >> > variable at the end. >> >> maybe, maybe not. Maybe just adopt Oracle's syntax - nothing more, >> nothing less - like like some others. > > Yea, definitely they were copying Oracle.  My point is that the odd > ordering does make sense, and the use of an arrow-like operator also > makes sense because of the odd ordering. > What I know - this feature is supported only by Oracle and MSSQL now. MSSQL syntax isn't available, because expected @ before variables. So there is available only Oracle's syntax. It is some like industrial standard. Pavel > -- >  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(a)momjian.us>     http://momjian.us >  EnterpriseDB               http://enterprisedb.com > >  + None of us is going to be here forever. + > > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers |