On 27/05/10 02:09, alvherre wrote:
Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of mié may 26 18:52:33 -0400 2010:
I think we should fix it now. Quick thought: maybe we could use FOR
instead of AS: select myfunc(7 for a, 6 for b); IIRC the standard's
mechanism for this is 'paramname => value', but I think that has
problems because of our possibly use of => as an operator - otherwise
that would be by far the best way to go.
I think we were refraining from => because the standard didn't specify
this back then -- AFAIU this was introduced very recently. But now that
it does, and that the syntax we're implementing conflicts with a
different feature, it seems wise to use the standard-mandated syntax.
The problem with the => operator seems best resolved as not accepting
such an operator in a function parameter, which sucks but we don't seem
to have a choice. Perhaps we could allow "=>" to resolve as the
operator for the case the user really needs to use it; or a
schema-qualified operator.
AFAIU, the standard doesn't say anything about named parameters. Oracle
uses =>, but as you said, that's ambiguous with the => operator.
+1 for FOR.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
