On Dec 15, 2008, at 11:05 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
In my mind, you just have to think about it hard enough to come to
realize that, when viewed from the right angle, the semantic
conflict might not exist after all. It's a bit tricky, but I think
it's possible.
Better for users not to
2008/12/15 Peter Eisentraut :
> Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>
>> Because AS is signal for collecting column (or label) names.
>>
>> I thing so we should use "AS" as Tom's proposal, together with SQL/XML
>> functionality.
>
> Yes, please implement that.
>
I'll do it - it's better then nothing,
>> It's o
Pavel Stehule wrote:
Because AS is signal for collecting column (or label) names.
I thing so we should use "AS" as Tom's proposal, together with SQL/XML
functionality.
Yes, please implement that.
It's only idea: default behave is using as for param name specification,
seconf with flag maybe
David E. Wheeler wrote:
Perhaps not, but I have to say, looking at Robert's JSON example:
SELECT json(r.foo AS foo, r.bar AS bar, r.baz AS baz, r.bletch AS
quux) FROM rel r;
I would be pretty confused. It looks exactly like the proposed syntax
for named parameters. So while syntactically the
2008/12/15 Zeugswetter Andreas OSB sIT :
>
>> it's look well, but I still prefer some combination with =
>>
>> name: = ''
>> name: => '''
>> :name = ''
>> $name => ..
>> $name = ..
>
> I wonder about name := ''.
>
> := is used in Pascal/Ada to assign a value. Or would that again be an allowed
> op
> it's look well, but I still prefer some combination with =
>
> name: = ''
> name: => '''
> :name = ''
> $name => ..
> $name = ..
I wonder about name := ''.
:= is used in Pascal/Ada to assign a value. Or would that again be an allowed
operator in pg ?
Andreas
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mail
2008/12/14 Greg Stark :
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 1:42 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> What if relabeling support were to spread some more?
>>
>> The only example I can think of besides XML is JSON. There might be a
>> few more. Basically, relabelling is a handy shortcut when you are
>> serializing d
On Dec 14, 2008, at 6:55 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
The whole relabeling thing seems like a seriously silly idea.
I wouldn't say that it's silly. What I do say is that it makes no
sense
to imagine that it would be used at the same time as named parameters.
The entire point of something like XMLEL
"Greg Stark" writes:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 1:42 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> What if relabeling support were to spread some more?
>>
>> The only example I can think of besides XML is JSON. There might be a
>> few more. Basically, relabelling is a handy shortcut when you are
>> serializing da
> The whole relabeling thing seems like a seriously silly idea. Why is
> it at all a shortcut to use "AS" instead of "," ?
Because a lot of times you don't want to relabel, so you omit the "AS
label" part altogether, and the label is deduced from the expression
itself. For example, I don't need t
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 1:42 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> What if relabeling support were to spread some more?
>
> The only example I can think of besides XML is JSON. There might be a
> few more. Basically, relabelling is a handy shortcut when you are
> serializing data and want to avoid specifyin
> What if relabeling support were to spread some more?
The only example I can think of besides XML is JSON. There might be a
few more. Basically, relabelling is a handy shortcut when you are
serializing data and want to avoid specifying a list of columns and an
(almost) identical list of labels.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Le 13 déc. 08 à 22:32, Tom Lane a écrit :
Spread to what? AFAICS the way that XMLELEMENT uses AS is a
single-purpose wart
Ok now that explains.
The common lisp inspired syntax is only nice if we're to avoid using
AS, which I thought was the situ
Dimitri Fontaine writes:
> What if relabeling support were to spread some more?
Spread to what? AFAICS the way that XMLELEMENT uses AS is a
single-purpose wart (much like a lot of other stuff the SQL committee
invents :-(). I do not see a need to reserve AS in function argument
lists for that p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Le 13 déc. 08 à 17:05, Tom Lane a écrit :
I personally agree that AS seems more SQL-ish, but that's in the eye
of the beholder.
So do I, but I fear it's already taken for another meaning.
The argument about ambiguity in XMLELEMENT is bogus becase
> I personally agree that AS seems more SQL-ish, but that's in the eye
> of the beholder.
>
> The argument about ambiguity in XMLELEMENT is bogus becase XMLELEMENT
> doesn't (and won't) have named parameters. But it is true that
> XMLELEMENT is doing something subtly different with the AS clause t
On 2008-12-13, at 16:19, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm sure it's technically possible, but I see no redeeming social
value
in it ... we should pick one and quit repainting the bike shed.
+1000
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscript
David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2008, at 5:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > I'm sure it's technically possible, but I see no redeeming social
> > value
> > in it ... we should pick one and quit repainting the bike shed.
>
> Well, as I've said, I'm okay with AS, though it's not my favorite. I
"David E. Wheeler" writes:
> I don't suppose that the position of the label and
> the value on either side of "AS" could be reversible, could it?
No. Consider
SELECT foo(bar AS baz) FROM ...
If the from-clause provides columns named both bar and baz, it would
be impossible to decide
On Dec 13, 2008, at 5:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm sure it's technically possible, but I see no redeeming social
value
in it ... we should pick one and quit repainting the bike shed.
Well, as I've said, I'm okay with AS, though it's not my favorite. I
can see the argument that it's more like
"David E. Wheeler" writes:
> On Dec 13, 2008, at 5:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> However, after looking at the precedent of XMLELEMENT, it's hard to
>> deny that if the SQL committee ever chose to standardize named parameters,
>> AS is what they would use. The chances that ":" would become the
>> s
On Dec 13, 2008, at 5:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
However, after looking at the precedent of XMLELEMENT, it's hard to
deny
that if the SQL committee ever chose to standardize named parameters,
AS is what they would use. The chances that ":" would become the
standard are negligible --- that's not t
Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
> Le 13 d?c. 08 ? 11:39, Peter Eisentraut a ?crit :
> > On Friday 12 December 2008 20:05:57 Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Excellent. I checked that psql's colon-variable feature behaves the
> >> same. So it looks like th
Dimitri Fontaine writes:
> Le 13 déc. 08 à 11:39, Peter Eisentraut a écrit :
>> I personally thought that AS was a better idea.
> It seems some people want to be able to overload some default
> parameters (but not others) and at the same time alias them to some
> new label. I'm not sure I und
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Le 13 déc. 08 à 11:39, Peter Eisentraut a écrit :
On Friday 12 December 2008 20:05:57 Tom Lane wrote:
Excellent. I checked that psql's colon-variable feature behaves the
same. So it looks like the proposed "name: value" syntax would
indeed
A Dissabte 13 Desembre 2008, Peter Eisentraut va escriure:
> On Friday 12 December 2008 20:05:57 Tom Lane wrote:
> > Excellent. I checked that psql's colon-variable feature behaves the
> > same. So it looks like the proposed "name: value" syntax would indeed
> > not break any existing features.
On Friday 12 December 2008 20:05:57 Tom Lane wrote:
> Excellent. I checked that psql's colon-variable feature behaves the
> same. So it looks like the proposed "name: value" syntax would indeed
> not break any existing features. Barring better ideas I think we should
> go with that one.
I perso
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Meskes writes:
> > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 10:06:30AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Hmm ... actually, ecpg might be a problem here anyway. I know it has
> >> special meaning for :name, but does it allow space between the colon
> >> and th
Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> Excellent. I checked that psql's colon-variable feature behaves the
>> same. So it looks like the proposed "name: value" syntax would indeed
>> not break any existing features. Barring better ideas I think we should
>> go with that one.
> Does that mean the whitespace
Tom Lane wrote:
Michael Meskes writes:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 10:06:30AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Hmm ... actually, ecpg might be a problem here anyway. I know it has
special meaning for :name, but does it allow space between the colon
and the name? If it does then the colon syntax
On Dec 12, 2008, at 7:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Excellent. I checked that psql's colon-variable feature behaves the
same. So it looks like the proposed "name: value" syntax would indeed
not break any existing features. Barring better ideas I think we
should
go with that one.
+1
Best,
Davi
Michael Meskes writes:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 10:06:30AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm ... actually, ecpg might be a problem here anyway. I know it has
>> special meaning for :name, but does it allow space between the colon
>> and the name? If it does then the colon syntax loses. If it doesn
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 10:06:30AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hmm ... actually, ecpg might be a problem here anyway. I know it has
> special meaning for :name, but does it allow space between the colon
> and the name? If it does then the colon syntax loses. If it doesn't
No. Here's the lexer rule
On Dec 12, 2008, at 4:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
"David E. Wheeler" writes:
Hrm. I can see that, I guess. In that case, though, I think I'd
prefer
the colon at the beginning of the parameter label:
SELECT foo( :bar => 'ick', :baz => 'ack' );
That's ugly, and incompatible with ecpg syntax,
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
> wrote:
>> That's why I'm preferring the common-lisp syntax of :param value, or its
>> variant param: value.
>
> FWIW there is no such common-lisp syntax. Colon is just a regular
> symbol char
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
wrote:
> That's why I'm preferring the common-lisp syntax of :param value, or its
> variant param: value.
FWIW there is no such common-lisp syntax. Colon is just a regular
symbol character and :param is just a regular symbol in common-lisp.
There
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> We could do it the other way round:
> SELECT foo( 'ick' AS bar, 'ack' AS baz);
Yeah, that's the direction I had always assumed that we would use,
if AS is the chosen syntax for this.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Le 12 déc. 08 à 15:57, Gregory Stark a écrit :
These don't solve anything. There's nothing stopping you from
defining a unary
prefix operator => or =
That's why I'm preferring the common-lisp syntax of :param value, or
its variant param: value.
"David E. Wheeler" writes:
> Hrm. I can see that, I guess. In that case, though, I think I'd prefer
> the colon at the beginning of the parameter label:
>SELECT foo( :bar => 'ick', :baz => 'ack' );
That's ugly, and incompatible with ecpg syntax, and what's the redeeming
value anyway?
In a
On Dec 12, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
Hrm. I can see that, I guess. In that case, though, I think I'd
prefer the
colon at the beginning of the parameter label:
SELECT foo( :bar => 'ick', :baz => 'ack' );
this syntax is used yet
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/interactive/app-
On Dec 12, 2008, at 3:57 PM, Gregory Stark wrote:
In any case this is all weird. SQL isn't C and doesn't have random
bits of
punctuation involved in syntax. It uses whole words for just about
everything.
Anything you do using punctuation characters is going to look out of
place.
Well, wha
2008/12/12 David E. Wheeler :
> On Dec 12, 2008, at 3:38 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>> I discussed about this form with Tom.
>>
>> I thing so following should be readable:
>>
>> name: [ optional => ] value
>>
>> SELECT foo( bar: 'ick', baz: 'ack' );
>> SELECT foo( bar: => 'ick', baz: => 'ack' );
"Pavel Stehule" writes:
> 2008/12/12 Heikki Linnakangas :
>
>> We could do it the other way round:
>>
>> SELECT foo( 'ick' AS bar, 'ack' AS baz);
I always assumed we were talking about it this way. Everywhere else in SQL AS
is followed by the labels, not the values.
> I discussed about this for
On Dec 12, 2008, at 3:38 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
I discussed about this form with Tom.
I thing so following should be readable:
name: [ optional => ] value
SELECT foo( bar: 'ick', baz: 'ack' );
SELECT foo( bar: => 'ick', baz: => 'ack' );
or
SELECT foo( bar: = 'ick', baz: = 'ack' );
rea
2008/12/12 Heikki Linnakangas :
> David E. Wheeler wrote:
>>
>> Coming to this a bit late, but it seems to me that, while it makes sense
>> to assign a label to a value using "AS", it's kind of weird to use it to
>> assign a value to a label.
>>
>> SELECT foo( bar => 'ick', baz => 'ack' );
>> SELEC
> I'm okay with AS if that's the way it has to be, but what about a colon
> right at the end of the label? A cast is two colons, so no conflict there:
>
> SELECT foo(1, name: 'bar', quantity: 10);
>
> No doubt I'm missing something…
I'd just like to mention that there are two different cases to
c
David E. Wheeler wrote:
Coming to this a bit late, but it seems to me that, while it makes sense
to assign a label to a value using "AS", it's kind of weird to use it to
assign a value to a label.
SELECT foo( bar => 'ick', baz => 'ack' );
SELECT foo( bar AS 'ick', baz AS 'ack' );
We could do
I wrote:
> "Rod Taylor" writes:
>> How about IS or INTO?
> IS isn't a fully reserved word, and INTO seems pretty weird for this.
> (IS is a type_func_name_keyword, so maybe we could make it work anyway,
> but it sounds a bit fragile.)
Actually, there's an obvious counterexample for IS:
>> right at the end of the label? A cast is two colons, so no conflict there:
>>
>> SELECT foo(1, name: 'bar', quantity: 10);
>
> it's look well, but I still prefer some combination with =
>
> name: = ''
> name: => '''
> :name = ''
> $name => ..
> $name = ..
hmm :( $name isn't possible
:name is i
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 09:00:52AM -0500, Rod Taylor wrote:
> How about IS or INTO?
>
> param_name IS 3
> param_name IS 'some string value'
that wouldn't work with NULL would it? for example is:
a IS NULL
checking if identifier 'a' IS NULL, or if you're giving NULL to
parameter 'a'.
> 3 INT
On Dec 12, 2008, at 2:47 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
it's look well, but I still prefer some combination with =
name: = ''
name: => '''
:name = ''
$name => ..
$name = ..
Maybe I am too conservative
Given that the colon already indicates "This label corresponds to that
value", the other operat
"Rod Taylor" writes:
> How about IS or INTO?
IS isn't a fully reserved word, and INTO seems pretty weird for this.
(IS is a type_func_name_keyword, so maybe we could make it work anyway,
but it sounds a bit fragile.)
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing
How about IS or INTO?
param_name IS 3
param_name IS 'some string value'
3 INTO param_name
'some string value' INTO param_name
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2008/12/12 David E. Wheeler :
>> On Dec 12, 2008, at 2:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> So I think that really th
2008/12/12 David E. Wheeler :
> On Dec 12, 2008, at 2:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> So I think that really this is never going to fly unless it uses a
>> keyword-looking reserved word. And we're not going to take some short
>> word that's not reserved now and suddenly make it so. So, despite
>> Pav
"David E. Wheeler" writes:
> I'm okay with AS if that's the way it has to be, but what about a
> colon right at the end of the label?
Hmm ... a colon isn't considered to be an operator name, so this
wouldn't break any existing usage. I'm a little bit worried about
what we might be cutting ours
On Dec 12, 2008, at 2:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
So I think that really this is never going to fly unless it uses a
keyword-looking reserved word. And we're not going to take some short
word that's not reserved now and suddenly make it so. So, despite
Pavel's objection that the AS syntax proposal
On Dec 12, 2008, at 2:33 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Ok, time to revisit the classics then ;)
http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/functions.html#keyword-parameters
That would give us things like this:
SELECT foo(1, :name 'bar', :quantity 10);
As colon character does not appear in the list of al
"David E. Wheeler" writes:
> As a Perl hacker, I'm strongly biased toward =>, but I guess AS isn't
> *too* bad. At least it's the same number of characters. Is -> right out?
It's just as bad as => from the perspective of usurping a probable
user-defined operator name.
I think the fundamental p
2008/12/12 Dimitri Fontaine :
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
> Le 12 déc. 08 à 14:14, Ian Caulfield a écrit :
>>
>> unpopular, and '=>' et al conflict with operators, would verilog-style
>> syntax - eg function( .param(value) ) - be an idea?
>
> Ok, time to revisit the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Le 12 déc. 08 à 14:14, Ian Caulfield a écrit :
unpopular, and '=>' et al conflict with operators, would verilog-style
syntax - eg function( .param(value) ) - be an idea?
Ok, time to revisit the classics then ;)
http://www.gigamonkeys.com/boo
2008/12/12 David E. Wheeler :
> On Dec 11, 2008, at 3:42 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>>> what do you thing about?
>>>
>>> select fce(p1,p2,p3, SET paramname1 = val, paramname2 = val)
>>>
>>> example
>>> select dosome(10,20,30, SET flaga = true, flagb = false)
>>
>> I think AS read more naturally bec
On Dec 11, 2008, at 3:42 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
what do you thing about?
select fce(p1,p2,p3, SET paramname1 = val, paramname2 = val)
example
select dosome(10,20,30, SET flaga = true, flagb = false)
I think AS read more naturally because you expect the parameter to
come
first, not the S
2008/12/11 Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thursday 11 December 2008 17:11:28 Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> maybe this combination should be safe
>>
>> $name => or $name -> ...
>>
>> it's not used everywhere
>
> Why don't you actually just implement the whole thing first using a random,
>
On Thursday 11 December 2008 17:11:28 Pavel Stehule wrote:
> maybe this combination should be safe
>
> $name => or $name -> ...
>
> it's not used everywhere
Why don't you actually just implement the whole thing first using a random,
simple, and nonconflicting syntax?
Adjusting the syntax to
2008/12/11 Kevin Grittner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In any case, I'm not wedded to using AS for this, and am happy to
>> consider other suggestions. But => isn't acceptable.
>
> How about using a bare equals sign (or the => characters) for
> parameter assignm
2008/12/11 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> what do you thing about?
>
>> select fce(p1,p2,p3, SET paramname1 = val, paramname2 = val)
>
> I'm not really seeing any redeeming social value in that. It's more
> keystrokes than the other; and if you disli
>>> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In any case, I'm not wedded to using AS for this, and am happy to
> consider other suggestions. But => isn't acceptable.
How about using a bare equals sign (or the => characters) for
parameter assignment, but require that the parameter name be prefixed
"Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> what do you thing about?
> select fce(p1,p2,p3, SET paramname1 = val, paramname2 = val)
I'm not really seeing any redeeming social value in that. It's more
keystrokes than the other; and if you dislike AS because of possible
confusion with other usag
Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2008/12/10 Pavel Stehule <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > 2008/12/10 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> "Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>> next argument - if we accept AS for param names, then we introduce
> >>> nonconsistent behave with SQL/XML functions.
> >>
> >>> s
2008/12/10 Pavel Stehule <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/12/10 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> "Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> next argument - if we accept AS for param names, then we introduce
>>> nonconsistent behave with SQL/XML functions.
>>
>>> select xmlforest(c1, c2 as foo, c3)
2008/12/10 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> next argument - if we accept AS for param names, then we introduce
>> nonconsistent behave with SQL/XML functions.
>
>> select xmlforest(c1, c2 as foo, c3) -- there foo isn't doesn't mean
>> "use it as param f
"Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> next argument - if we accept AS for param names, then we introduce
> nonconsistent behave with SQL/XML functions.
> select xmlforest(c1, c2 as foo, c3) -- there foo isn't doesn't mean
> "use it as param foo",
It could be read as meaning that, I think.
2008/12/10 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> look again
>> select c as foo from tab ...
>> select fce(c as foo) from tab ...
>
>> when you use AS as param names specification, you change meaning of
>> some construct via used context?
>
> Uh, what's your
2008/12/10 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 2008/12/10 Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> Well, that is interesting, but in SQL we already use 'AS' in most places
>>> where we want to assign a label to a value, so it seems AS is more
>>> logical for
"Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> look again
> select c as foo from tab ...
> select fce(c as foo) from tab ...
> when you use AS as param names specification, you change meaning of
> some construct via used context?
Uh, what's your point? AS changes the meaning too. For example in
"Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2008/12/10 Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Well, that is interesting, but in SQL we already use 'AS' in most places
>> where we want to assign a label to a value, so it seems AS is more
>> logical for SQL at this point.
> Question is - what is la
2008/12/10 Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> >> PL/pgSQL < PL/SQL < ADA so using '=>' is only consistent and natural.
>> >> And it is my goal.
>> >
>> > Well, that is interesting, but in SQL we already use 'AS' in most places
>> > where we want to assign a label to a valu
Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >> PL/pgSQL < PL/SQL < ADA so using '=>' is only consistent and natural.
> >> And it is my goal.
> >
> > Well, that is interesting, but in SQL we already use 'AS' in most places
> > where we want to assign a label to a value, so it seems AS is more
> > logical for SQL at this
2008/12/10 Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> >
>> > How would a user recognise which of these are legal operator names?
>> >
>> > Incidentally -- EDB selling Oracle compatibility may put me in a
>> > questionable
>> > position here -- the more Oracle incompatibilities in
Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >
> > How would a user recognise which of these are legal operator names?
> >
> > Incidentally -- EDB selling Oracle compatibility may put me in a
> > questionable
> > position here -- the more Oracle incompatibilities in stock Postgres the
> > better for us. But afaik we do
2008/12/9 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> PL/pgSQL < PL/SQL < ADA so using '=>' is only consistent and natural.
>> And it is my goal.
>
> [ shrug... ] Don't be too surprised when the patch gets rejected.
> Oracle compatibility is nice when we can get
"Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> PL/pgSQL < PL/SQL < ADA so using '=>' is only consistent and natural.
> And it is my goal.
[ shrug... ] Don't be too surprised when the patch gets rejected.
Oracle compatibility is nice when we can get it, but we aren't going
to break existing behavio
>
> How would a user recognise which of these are legal operator names?
>
> Incidentally -- EDB selling Oracle compatibility may put me in a questionable
> position here -- the more Oracle incompatibilities in stock Postgres the
> better for us. But afaik we don't emulate => anyways so that hardly
"Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2008/12/9 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> "Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> 2008/12/9 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
... and it breaks an operator that's already in use.
>>
>>> what is acceptable workaround? I unhappy, so this symbol
"Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> what is problematic on GUC?
Basically, it's a bad idea to have GUCs that silently make significant
changes in the syntactic meaning of a query. We've learned that lesson
the hard way I think. There are places where we've been forced to do
it because
2008/12/9 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 2008/12/9 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> If you could prove that it were *only* being used by this contrib module
>>> then I might hold still for replacing it. But you can't. The odds are
>>> good that peo
> it means, so we must not implement any new operator?
If the operator were called [EMAIL PROTECTED], I think you could make a good
argument that no one else is likely using that for anything.
Surely the same cannot be said of =>
Of course, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is not a very convenient name for an
"Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2008/12/9 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> If you could prove that it were *only* being used by this contrib module
>> then I might hold still for replacing it. But you can't. The odds are
>> good that people have custom data types using similarly-nam
2008/12/9 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 2008/12/9 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> ... and it breaks an operator that's already in use.
>
>> what is acceptable workaround? I unhappy, so this symbol was used for
>> this minor contrib module (for this
"Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2008/12/9 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> ... and it breaks an operator that's already in use.
> what is acceptable workaround? I unhappy, so this symbol was used for
> this minor contrib module (for this operator doesn't exists regress
> test).
If y
2008/12/9 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> select foo(777, three=> '{1,2,3,4,5});
>
>> it's more safe and more readable.
>
> ... and it breaks an operator that's already in use.
>
>> I did some test, and I thing so it is implementable. I had to solve
>>
"Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> select foo(777, three=> '{1,2,3,4,5});
> it's more safe and more readable.
... and it breaks an operator that's already in use.
> I did some test, and I thing so it is implementable. I had to solve
> problem with hstore module. There is defined opera
2008/12/9 Grzegorz Jaskiewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Ok, how about
>
> CREATE FUNCTION FOO (one int, two float8 default 3.14, three int[] default
> '{6,7,8,90}');
>
> and than SELECT FOO( 777, DEFAULT, '{1,2,3,4,5}');
>
> I have no idea what SQL standard says in that case, all I know is that
>
Grzegorz Jaskiewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The default param that's in the middle. Would it be hard, or do anyone
> objects against adding 'default' keyword there, so one doesn't have to
> substitute default param 3, when he only wants to override 2nd in
> funct(1,2,3) ?
Yes, and yes.
Grzegorz Jaskiewicz wrote:
Ok, how about
CREATE FUNCTION FOO (one int, two float8 default 3.14, three int[]
default '{6,7,8,90}');
and than SELECT FOO( 777, DEFAULT, '{1,2,3,4,5}');
Yeah, that could be a useful feature.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.o
Ok, how about
CREATE FUNCTION FOO (one int, two float8 default 3.14, three int[]
default '{6,7,8,90}');
and than SELECT FOO( 777, DEFAULT, '{1,2,3,4,5}');
I have no idea what SQL standard says in that case, all I know is that
keyword DEFAULT exists in it, and is used in queries for sim
Grzegorz Jaskiewicz wrote:
if I may request one simple change/addition, Probably trivial to add,
but I don't have too much time to give away now to any other project
than one that pays my debts.
The default param that's in the middle. Would it be hard, or do anyone
objects against adding 'defau
Decibel! wrote:
On Nov 30, 2008, at 12:04 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
Agreed, default values should not be a part of function signatures,
although it might be nice if ALTER FUNCTION to allow default values to
be changed.
It would be VERY nice. I routinely cut and paste an entire function
hea
2008/12/9 Grzegorz Jaskiewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> if I may request one simple change/addition, Probably trivial to add, but I
> don't have too much time to give away now to any other project than one that
> pays my debts.
> The default param that's in the middle. Would it be hard, or do anyone
>
if I may request one simple change/addition, Probably trivial to add,
but I don't have too much time to give away now to any other project
than one that pays my debts.
The default param that's in the middle. Would it be hard, or do anyone
objects against adding 'default' keyword there, so one
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
