hstore ==> and deprecate =>
in [PgSql]
|
From: Robert Haas on 9 Jun 2010 12:58 On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 12:54 PM, David E. Wheeler <david(a)kineticode.com> wrote: >> Perhaps it would be sane to make hstore_in accept either => or ==>, but >> not change hstore_out (for now)? > > +1 Anyone want to take a crack at coding that? I took a brief look at the code but it looked a bit intimidating at first glance. -- 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: "David E. Wheeler" on 9 Jun 2010 13:15 On Jun 9, 2010, at 10:04 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I actually like :> pretty well. It looks more like =>, and has nice correspondence to := for named function params. > > Colon was removed from the set of allowed operator-name characters years > ago. There are conflicts with various usages (ecpg & psql variables). > This is actually a place where the current := behavior could cause some > issues, though I'm not aware of any at the moment. Oh, that's a shame. In that case, how about: 'foo' >> 'bar' Best, David -- 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 11 Jun 2010 02:51 On tis, 2010-06-08 at 16:17 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > Perhaps > > -> > > That's already in use to mean something else. Btw., the SQL standard also defines -> for something else, so if you wanted to be really visionary, you could deprecate that one as an operator at the same time. -- 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 11 Jun 2010 07:10 On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(a)gmx.net> wrote: > On tis, 2010-06-08 at 16:17 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> > Perhaps >> > -> >> >> That's already in use to mean something else. > > Btw., the SQL standard also defines -> for something else, so if you > wanted to be really visionary, you could deprecate that one as an > operator at the same time. Ouch. What does it define it to mean? -- 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: Peter Eisentraut on 11 Jun 2010 07:35
On fre, 2010-06-11 at 07:10 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(a)gmx.net> wrote: > > On tis, 2010-06-08 at 16:17 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> > Perhaps > >> > -> > >> > >> That's already in use to mean something else. > > > > Btw., the SQL standard also defines -> for something else, so if you > > wanted to be really visionary, you could deprecate that one as an > > operator at the same time. > > Ouch. What does it define it to mean? Similar to C: Dereferencing a reference and accessing a member. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers |