Bruce Momjian 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.
Thinking some more, what is the value of keeping => in hstore for 9.0? Perhaps we could create a script they could run on 8.4 that would add support for the new hstore operator to replace =>, and then they can upgrade to 9.0 when they are ready. I see only three mentions of => in hstore.sql. Do we really want to keep the := baggage forever just for hstore? -- 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
