| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Steve Prentice <prentice(at)cisco(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: mixed, named notation support |
| Date: | 2009-08-09 16:27:53 |
| Message-ID: | 13809.1249835273@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Now that I've started to read this patch ... exactly what is the
argument for allowing a "mixed" notation (some of the parameters named
and some not)? ISTM that just serves to complicate both the patch
and the user's-eye view, for no real benefit.
Considering that we are worried about someday having to adjust to a
SQL standard in this area, I think we ought to be as conservative as
possible about what we introduce as user-visible features here.
As an example, if they do go with "=>" as the parameter marker,
mixed notation would become a seriously bad idea because it would be
impossible to distinguish incidental use of => as an operator from
mixed notation.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-08-09 16:30:47 | Re: revised hstore patch |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-08-09 16:27:03 | Re: revised hstore patch |