2008/8/23 Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sat, 2008-08-23 at 08:21 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: >> Hello >> >> 2008/8/22 Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 23:41 -0500, Decibel! wrote: >> >> On Aug 20, 2008, at 8:26 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: >> > >> >> How about we poll -general and see what people say? I'll bet Tom a >> >> beer that no one replies saying they've created a => operator (unless >> >> maybe PostGIS uses it). >> > >> > Does Oracle use => for "labeled function params" or just named >> > arguments ? >> > >> >> Oracle use it for named arguments - what I know, similar it doesn't >> allow functionality as labeled params publicly - SQL/XML use it. >> >> >> If we're really worried about it we can have a GUC for a few versions >> >> that turns off named parameter assignment. But I don't think we >> >> should compromise the design on the theory that some folks might be >> >> using that as an operator *and* can't change their application to >> >> wrap it's use in (). >> > >> > I still think that better approach is allowing RECORD as input type and >> > do all the things Pavel proposed with a function that iterates over >> > record. >> > >> >> record or hash table - it's implementation - second step. We have to >> find syntax and semantic now. > > Why not just use some standard record syntax, like > > SELECT(value::type name, ...) > > or perhaps some extended ROW() or VALUES() syntax ? > > Like this : > SELECT * FROM FUNC(SELECT(value::type name, ...) AS r); >
do you thing, so is it simpler? Pavel > ----------------- > Hannu > > > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
