2010/5/31 Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us>: > Pavel Stehule wrote: >> >> 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. > > Yea, definitely they were copying Oracle. My point is that the odd > ordering does make sense, and the use of an arrow-like operator also > makes sense because of the odd ordering. >
What I know - this feature is supported only by Oracle and MSSQL now. MSSQL syntax isn't available, because expected @ before variables. So there is available only Oracle's syntax. It is some like industrial standard. Pavel > -- > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us > EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com > > + None of us is going to be here forever. + > > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
