From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Grzegorz Jaskiewicz" <gj(at)pointblue(dot)com(dot)pl>, "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: WIP: default values for function parameters |
Date: | 2008-12-09 15:34:21 |
Message-ID: | 15416.1228836861@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 2008/12/9 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>> If you could prove that it were *only* being used by this contrib module
>> then I might hold still for replacing it. But you can't. The odds are
>> good that people have custom data types using similarly-named operators.
> it means, so we must not implement any new operator?
No, it doesn't mean any such thing. If we invented, say, "int4 => int4"
it would not break someone's use of => for their own custom datatype.
What you're proposing would be a global redefinition of the meaning of =>.
This is closer to creating a new reserved word, which as I'm sure you
know we try hard to avoid, even for keywords that the spec says we can
reserve. The bar for making a new fully-reserved word that isn't in
the spec is *very* high.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2008-12-09 15:40:33 | Re: WIP: default values for function parameters |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2008-12-09 15:33:57 | Re: WIP: default values for function parameters |