This has been saved for the 8.4 release:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold
---
Brendan Jurd wrote:
> As discussed on -hackers, I'm trying to get rid of some redundant code
> by creating a widely u
> "Gevik Babakhani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So where do we go from here?
> > a. .
> > b. .
> > c. ':'
> > d. just
>
> We must support both a and d.
Then a and d it is :)
Regards,
Gevik
Gevik Babakhani
PostgreSQL NL http://www.post
"Gevik Babakhani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So where do we go from here?
> a. .
> b. .
> c. ':'
> d. just
We must support both a and d.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What I mean by "kinda" is that it's a standard way of handling
> parameters in Oracle and in DBI. I think it would be a very bad idea
> to require that people use the function name in parameters, as such
> names can be quite long. People using names like
So where do we go from here?
a. .
b. .
c. ':'
d. just
option a,b and d are easy to implement.
option d would be least clear and readable considering
sql functions can be long and have multiple arguments.
option c is more difficult because gram.y has to be modified
to understand ':' as parame
"David Fetter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What I mean by "kinda" is that it's a standard way of handling
> parameters in Oracle and in DBI.
That's a good reason *not* to use them for other purposes. Users trying to
create procedures through DBI or other interfaces like it will run into
prob
On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 12:44:07PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think a prefix of ':' would be good, as it's already a standard,
> > kinda. Anybody who names a database object :foo deserves whatever
> > happens to them :P
>
> The important word there is
> I think a prefix of ':' would be good, as it's already a
> standard, kinda. Anybody who names a database object :foo
> deserves whatever happens to them :P
>
I for one like something less cryptic than ':'
besids going with ':' means extra hack in gram.y
(Ones we get to implement packages I
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think a prefix of ':' would be good, as it's already a standard,
> kinda. Anybody who names a database object :foo deserves whatever
> happens to them :P
The important word there is "kinda". We do not need a prefix and
I'll resist introducing one.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
>
> I think a prefix of ':' would be good, as it's already a standard,
> kinda. Anybody who names a database object :foo deserves whatever
> happens to them :P
>
> Cheers,
> David.
+1
':' is shorter than 'this'. And ':' is well known in SQL area.
Pavel
---
On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 12:36:45PM +0100, Gevik Babakhani wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> This patch implements a (generic) callback functionality in the parser.
> The mechanism can be used to send callback messages from within the parser
> to external functions.
>
> I would like to know your opinion abo
Hello All,
This patch implements a (generic) callback functionality in the parser.
The mechanism can be used to send callback messages from within the parser
to external functions.
I would like to know your opinion about the following:
In previous discussion Tom referred to:
>One point here is
12 matches
Mail list logo
