2009/8/7 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>: > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Bernd Helmle <maili...@oopsware.de> writes: >>> Here again a patch version with updated documentation. I will stop >>> reviewing this patch now and mark this ready for committer, so we have some >>> time left to incorporate additional feedback. >> >> I'm starting to look at this now, and my very first reaction was >> "what in the world is a leaky list?". I'm not sure I like the >> data structure itself, but the terminology is certainly completely >> unhelpful. Can't you come up with something better than >> "continuous/leaky"? > > Stepping back a bit, are we sure this is a feature we even want to > support? It was already pointed out in the thread on "Parser's hook > based on funccall" that SQL:201x may standardize => for this purpose. > I realize that's a problem because of the possibility of a > user-defined operator named =>, but aren't we usually reluctant to > adopt syntax that is thought likely to be incompatible with current or > future SQL standards? > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-07/msg01715.php > > ...Robert
We should support both syntax - in future. I afraid so we will thing up nothing new now. The arguments against to '=>' are valid still. This syntax (with "AS") doesn't break anything in future. PostgreSQL could to support both (default with AS) and via GUC standard (like standard_conforming_strings) Pavel > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
