From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "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 15:34:04 |
Message-ID: | 201006031534.o53FY4H24091@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > Are we sure we want hstore compatibility to drive this decision?
>
> hstore is what it is, and has been that way for a long time. We can't
> just ignore it. And I don't think breaking it (and probably other code)
> on zero notice is an acceptable outcome.
Well, it seems we are going to be stuck supporting => because it is hard
to argue that the SQL standards committee should adopt := instead of =>
because of hstore. ;-)
I hate eventually having two documented ways of doing something, but it
appears by releasing := we are doing exactly that.
Is telling hstore users they have to change => to something else such a
large major version incompatibility that it is worth supporting and
documenting two syntaxes for parameter assignment? It is that calculus
that has me questioning our approach.
--
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 15:34:43 | Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-06-03 15:30:15 | Re: Did we really want to force an initdb in beta2? |