From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature |
Date: | 2010-05-26 20:44:30 |
Message-ID: | 1274906670.19408.22.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
It turns out that the SQL standard uses the function call notation
foo(this AS that)
for something else:
<routine invocation> ::= <routine name> <SQL argument list>
<routine name> ::= [ <schema name> <period> ] <qualified identifier>
<SQL argument list> ::= <left paren> [ <SQL argument> [ { <comma> <SQL
argument> }... ] ] <right paren>
<SQL argument> ::= <value expression>
| <generalized expression>
| <target specification>
<generalized expression> ::= <value expression> AS <path-resolved
user-defined type name>
In systems that have inheritance of composite types, this is used to
specify which type the value is supposed to be interpreted as (for
example, to treat the value as a supertype).
Seems kind of bad to overload this with something completely different.
What should we do?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-05-26 20:45:10 | Re: Exposing the Xact commit order to the user |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2010-05-26 20:36:43 | Re: Exposing the Xact commit order to the user |