On Mar 27, 2011, at 6:11 AM, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> That syntax is sufficiently unwieldly that few people will want to use
>> it in real life, but certainly the backward compatibility problem is
>> much less than with what Tom proposed.
>
> Well, we would still support positional arguments like $1 $2 etc, right?
Yeah, that's not going away.
...Robert