On Oct 6, 2011, at 10:46 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> 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.
The only reason it would be required, I think, is if the SQL standard developed some other use for that operator. > 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. Makes sense. Best, David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
