alvherre <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes: > 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.
"Sucks" is not the word; "utterly unacceptable" is the word. Having an expression mean different things depending on context is a recipe for unbelievable nightmares. Can you imagine dealing with that in a query generator for example? Or even ruleutils.c? If we go with the spec's syntax I think we'd have no realistic choice except to forbid => altogether as an operator name. (And no, I'm not for that.) regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers