"David E. Wheeler" <da...@kineticode.com> writes: >>> Would it then be added as an alias for := for named function parameters? Or >>> would that come still later?
>> Once we do that, it will be impossible not merely deprecated to use => >> as an operator name. I think that has to wait at least another release >> cycle or two past where we're using it ourselves. > Okay. I kind of like := so there's no rush AFAIC. :-) Hmm ... actually, that raises another issue that I'm not sure whether there's consensus for or not. Are we intending to keep name := value syntax forever, as an alternative to the standard name => value syntax? I can't immediately see a reason not to, other than the "it's not standard" argument. Because if we *are* going to keep it forever, there's no very good reason why we shouldn't accept this plpgsql cursor patch now. We'd just have to remember to extend plpgsql to take => at the same time we do that for core function calls. 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