"Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hello > > 2008/8/23 Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> On Friday 22 August 2008 07:41:30 Decibel! wrote: >>> If we're really worried about it we can have a GUC for a few versions >>> that turns off named parameter assignment. But I don't think we >>> should compromise the design on the theory that some folks might be >>> using that as an operator *and* can't change their application to >>> wrap it's use in (). >> >> Even if that were a reasonable strategy, you can't use GUC parameters to >> alter >> parser behavior. > > I thing, so it's possible - in this case. We should transform named > params to expr after syntax analyze.
So for a bit of useless syntactic sugar we should introduce conflicts with named parameters, conflicts with operators, introduce an un-sqlish syntax and remove a feature users have already made use of and introduce backwards compatibility issues for those users? At any point in this discussion has anyone explained why these labels would actually be a good idea? -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's 24x7 Postgres support! -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
