| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature |
| Date: | 2010-06-03 15:17:53 |
| Message-ID: | 201006031517.o53FHrR21032@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On m?n, 2010-05-31 at 18:23 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > My feeling is that (a) there is no hurry to do anything about an
> > unreleased draft of the standard, and (b) perhaps Peter could lobby
> > the committee to change the standard before it does get published.
>
> Given that Oracle and DB2 already support that syntax in released
> products, and I'm not even a member of any relevant body, that seems
> pretty much impossible.
With beta2 being wrapped today, we are going to be releasing ':=' as our
method for function parameter assignment, but also with the likely
outcome that we are going to need to support '=>' very soon.
Are we sure we want hstore compatibility to drive this decision?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ None of us is going to be here forever. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-06-03 15:18:06 | Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2010-06-03 15:07:10 | Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay |