2010/5/31 Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us>: > Greg Stark wrote: >> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> > Not breaking hstore, as well as any third-party modules that might be >> > using that operator name. ?Did you not absorb any of the discussion >> > so far? >> > >> >> In fairness most of the discussion about breaking hstore was prior to >> our learning that the sql committee had gone so far into the weeds. >> >> If => is sql standard syntax then perhaps that changes the calculus. >> It's no longer a matter of supporting some oracle-specific syntax that >> diverges from sqlish syntax and conflicts with our syntax. Instead >> it's a question of our operator syntax conflicting with the sql >> standard. >> >> Part of the earlier discussion was about how => was a tempting >> operator name and other users may well have chosen it precisely >> because it's so evocative. But we don't actually have any evidence of >> that. Does anyone have any experience seeing => operators in the wild? > > Tangentially, I think the SQL committee chose => because the value, then > variable, ordering is so unintuitive, and I think they wanted that > ordering because most function calls use values so they wanted the > variable at the end.
maybe, maybe not. Maybe just adopt Oracle's syntax - nothing more, nothing less - like like some others. Regards Pavel > > -- > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us > EnterpriseDB http://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 > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers