From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature |
Date: | 2010-05-27 19:55:14 |
Message-ID: | 6941.1274990114@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On tor, 2010-05-27 at 12:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm afraid FOR doesn't work either; it'll create a conflict with the
>> spec-defined SUBSTRING(x FOR y) syntax.
> How about
> select myfunc(a := 7, b := 6);
> ?
Hey, that's a thought. We couldn't have used that notation before
because we didn't have := as a separate token, but since I hacked that
in for plpgsql's benefit, I think it might be an easy fix. It'd be
nice that it puts the argument name first like the spec syntax, too.
Question #1: is the SQL committee likely to standardize that out
from under us, too?
Question #2: will ecpg have a problem with this? Or psql for that
matter (can you have a psql variable named '=')?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-05-27 19:55:24 | Re: JSON manipulation functions |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-05-27 19:53:35 | Re: Synchronization levels in SR |