functional call named notation clashes with SQLfeature
in [PgSql]
|
From: Bruce Momjian on 3 Jun 2010 11:44 Bruce Momjian wrote: > 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. Thinking some more, what is the value of keeping => in hstore for 9.0? Perhaps we could create a script they could run on 8.4 that would add support for the new hstore operator to replace =>, and then they can upgrade to 9.0 when they are ready. I see only three mentions of => in hstore.sql. Do we really want to keep the := baggage forever just for hstore? -- 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 12:00 Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> writes: > > Thinking some more, what is the value of keeping => in hstore for 9.0? > > Backwards compatibility. You have not made any argument today that we > have not been over many times before. I do not have time to argue > about this today --- I have to go fix max_standby_delay. Agreed. I am just making sure we are going in the right direction. -- 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 12:13
David E. Wheeler wrote: > On Jun 3, 2010, at 8:53 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: > > > Now that it's pretty clear from Peter that the standard is not going to > > change its choice here, I'll vote adding a WARNING each time an operator > > called => is created, so that we get a chance to move later on. > > Should support for ==> be added to hstore for 9.0? So both => and ==> will work? I have added the idea to the 9.0 open items wiki: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.0_Open_Items#Code -- 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 |