| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Rod Taylor" <rod(dot)taylor(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "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: | 2008-12-12 14:22:30 |
| Message-ID: | 5010.1229091750@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> "Rod Taylor" <rod(dot)taylor(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> How about IS or INTO?
> IS isn't a fully reserved word, and INTO seems pretty weird for this.
> (IS is a type_func_name_keyword, so maybe we could make it work anyway,
> but it sounds a bit fragile.)
Actually, there's an obvious counterexample for IS:
select func(foo IS NULL)
Two possible meanings...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-12-12 14:23:28 | Re: WIP: default values for function parameters |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2008-12-12 14:22:29 | Re: WIP: default values for function parameters |