Re: proposal: ANSI SQL 2011 syntax for named parameters

2013/2/4 Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz>:
> On 04/02/13 21:55, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> 2013/1/2 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
> I am not sure, but maybe is time to introduce ANSI SQL syntax for
> functions' named parameters
>
> It is defined in ANSI SQL 2011
>
> CALL P (B => 1, A => 2)
>
> instead PostgreSQL syntax CALL ( B := 1, A := 2)
>
> Keep in mind that, as recently as PostgreSQL 9.1, we shipped hstore
> with a =>(text, text) operator. That operator was deprecated in 9.0,
> but it wasn't actually removed until PostgreSQL 9.2. Whenever we do
> this, it's going to break things for anyone who hasn't yet upgraded
> from hstore v1.0 to hstore v1.1. So I would prefer to wait one more
> release. That way, anyone who does an upgrade, say, every other major
> release cycle should have a reasonably clean upgrade path.
>
> I realize that the 4+-year journey toward allowing => rather than :=
> probably seems tedious to many people by now, but I think the cautious
> path we've taken is entirely warranted. As much as I want us to be
> standards-compliant in this area, I also want us to not break any more
> user applications than necessary along the way.
>
> Incidentally, I think there are two changes here which should be
> considered independently. One, allowing => rather than := for
> specifying named parameters. And two, adding a statement called CALL
> that can be used to invoke a function. Maybe those are both good
> ideas and maybe they aren't, but they're independent.
>
> can I recapitulate a plan?
>
> * enabling '=>' in 9.4
> * we will support ':=' too
>
> What we can (or have to) do now?
>
> Regards
>
> Pavel
>
>
>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
> I prefer ':=', as I like the ALGOL justification of it.

:= is not in ANSI SQL, so we are sure about '=>' (ADA wins :))

':=' can be supported as secondary form (and I don't plan remove it)

A timing is question now.

Regards

Pavel

>
> But I won't even threaten to hold my breath if I'm not allowed to use ':='!
> :-)
>
>
> Cheers,
> Gavin