functional call named notation clashes with SQLfeature
in [PgSql]
|
From: Bruce Momjian on 31 May 2010 10:16 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 "=>". -- 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: Bruce Momjian on 31 May 2010 23:44 Tom Lane 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?) I don't know, but based on the fact it matches Oracle, I think it is pretty well set by now. If we can't come up with a good syntax (and there isn't an SQL standard for it), we often review how Oracle or other databases handle such cases, and my guess is that the SQL committee does the same thing. -- 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
From: Peter Eisentraut on 1 Jun 2010 05:23 On mån, 2010-05-31 at 18:23 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > 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. Given that Oracle and DB2 already support that syntax in released products, and I'm not even a member of any relevant body, that seems pretty much impossible. -- 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: Bruce Momjian on 3 Jun 2010 11:17 Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On m?n, 2010-05-31 at 18:23 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > 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. > > Given that Oracle and DB2 already support that syntax in released > products, and I'm not even a member of any relevant body, that seems > pretty much impossible. With beta2 being wrapped today, we are going to be releasing ':=' as our method for function parameter assignment, but also with the likely outcome that we are going to need to support '=>' very soon. Are we sure we want hstore compatibility to drive this decision? -- 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
From: Bruce Momjian on 3 Jun 2010 11:34
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> writes: > > Are we sure we want hstore compatibility to drive this decision? > > hstore is what it is, and has been that way for a long time. We can't > just ignore it. And I don't think breaking it (and probably other code) > on zero notice is an acceptable outcome. Well, it seems we are going to be stuck supporting => because it is hard to argue that the SQL standards committee should adopt := instead of => because of hstore. ;-) I hate eventually having two documented ways of doing something, but it appears by releasing := we are doing exactly that. Is telling hstore users they have to change => to something else such a large major version incompatibility that it is worth supporting and documenting two syntaxes for parameter assignment? It is that calculus that has me questioning our approach. -- 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 |