From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature |
Date: | 2010-05-27 08:29:22 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTik7a_EUpx15NU0N8tjuzdix6CpodX0dSxOSqRMH@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2010/5/26 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>:
> It turns out that the SQL standard uses the function call notation
>
> foo(this AS that)
>
> for something else:
>
> <routine invocation> ::= <routine name> <SQL argument list>
>
> <routine name> ::= [ <schema name> <period> ] <qualified identifier>
>
> <SQL argument list> ::= <left paren> [ <SQL argument> [ { <comma> <SQL
> argument> }... ] ] <right paren>
>
> <SQL argument> ::= <value expression>
> | <generalized expression>
> | <target specification>
>
> <generalized expression> ::= <value expression> AS <path-resolved
> user-defined type name>
>
> In systems that have inheritance of composite types, this is used to
> specify which type the value is supposed to be interpreted as (for
> example, to treat the value as a supertype).
>
can it be used (in ANSI SQL semantic) as cast?
like SELECT foo(10.33 AS int)
> Seems kind of bad to overload this with something completely different.
> What should we do?
>
>
Is ANSI SQL consistent in this syntax? SQL/XML use "AS" in different meaning.
Regards
Pavel
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2010-05-27 09:01:04 | Re: Synchronization levels in SR |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-05-27 08:15:29 | Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature |