Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 6941.1274990114@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL
feature
Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: > On tor, 2010-05-27 at 12:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I'm afraid FOR doesn't work either; it'll create a conflict with the >> spec-defined SUBSTRING(x FOR y) syntax. > How about > select myfunc(a := 7, b := 6); > ? Hey, that's a thought. We couldn't have used that notation before because we didn't have := as a separate token, but since I hacked that in for plpgsql's benefit, I think it might be an easy fix. It'd be nice that it puts the argument name first like the spec syntax, too. Question #1: is the SQL committee likely to standardize that out from under us, too? Question #2: will ecpg have a problem with this? Or psql for that matter (can you have a psql variable named '=')? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: