| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature |
| Date: | 2010-06-01 03:48:58 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTim09yzPtzMSqjPets0Rj1mjwcR2lnnWDGS4wMu5@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
>> On May 31, 2010, at 7:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I was going to propose ==> across the board.
>
>> What about -> ?
>
> hstore already uses that for something else.
>
> Robert's idea isn't a bad one if we're forced to rename the operator.
> I'd still like to know exactly how hard the concrete has set on the
> SQL spec draft, first. (Peter?)
Given the way hstore uses ->, another reasonable choice might be -->
That way we'd have -> and --> instead of -> and ==>
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-06-01 03:51:00 | Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-06-01 03:44:39 | Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature |