On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: >> > Are we sure we want hstore compatibility to drive this decision? >> >> hstore is what it is, and has been that way for a long time. We can't >> just ignore it. And I don't think breaking it (and probably other code) >> on zero notice is an acceptable outcome. > > Well, it seems we are going to be stuck supporting => because it is hard > to argue that the SQL standards committee should adopt := instead of => > because of hstore. ;-) > > I hate eventually having two documented ways of doing something, but it > appears by releasing := we are doing exactly that. > > Is telling hstore users they have to change => to something else such a > large major version incompatibility that it is worth supporting and > documenting two syntaxes for parameter assignment? It is that calculus > that has me questioning our approach.
I don't mind supporting := and => as much as I mind supporting only :=, and I think that's the other reasonable alternative. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
