On 11/5/2025 11:16 AM, Patrick McFadin wrote:
This is a focused discussion stream to contemplate future CQL syntax
as we add new features.
Succinctly, I proposed to ratify the use of SQL syntax when possible
when adding new features. Prior work demonstrating that this can be
successful is CEP-52. Needed to add labels to schema, took the
previously art in PostgreSQL and used it.
This is NOT a proposal to backport or retrofit syntax. What is already
in CQL is a part of the spec. The separate topic of adding full SQL
support will be in a different DISCUSS thread.
The guidance for new feature developers would be:
- Review existing SQL syntax for your feature
- If there are extraordinary reasons to not use SQL syntax, enumerate
them in the CEP
- Performance and correctness take precedence.
This seems pretty workable.
A question it leaves me wondering about is: are there opportunities with
CQL to make existing syntax more SQL-like while preserving semantics,
correctness, etc., and if so should they be pursued? Or is the fourth
piece of guidance to leave existing CQL syntax alone?
-- Joel.
