From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: proposal: ANSI SQL 2011 syntax for named parameters
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 16:19:57 -0500
Message-ID: <50DE0CFD.6060508@gmx.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFj8pRD82DOVWYqN5vQ-4OEZu3jK-B5mFDMXJ4kKqGTV0sGjOw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFj8pRD82DOVWYqN5vQ-4OEZu3jK-B5mFDMXJ4kKqGTV0sGjOw@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
On 12/28/12 11:22 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> I am not sure, but maybe is time to introduce ANSI SQL syntax for
> functions' named parameters
>
> It is defined in ANSI SQL 2011
>
> CALL P (B => 1, A => 2)
>
> instead PostgreSQL syntax CALL ( B := 1, A := 2)
I agree it's probably time.
> * should we support both - probably yes
yes
> * how long time we will support pg syntax? - 2..5..ever years
>
> * when we mark pg syntax as obsolete?
>
> * when we remove pg syntax?
The := syntax was introduced in 9.0, so it is by now well entrenched. I
don't think we should remove it at all any time soon.
As for documentation, just state how it is. The standard syntax is =>,
but because of $various_issues, older versions only support :=.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: peter_e@gmx.net, pavel.stehule@gmail.com
Subject: Re: proposal: ANSI SQL 2011 syntax for named parameters
In-Reply-To: <50DE0CFD.6060508@gmx.net>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox