2008/12/9 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > "Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> 2008/12/9 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> If you could prove that it were *only* being used by this contrib module >>> then I might hold still for replacing it. But you can't. The odds are >>> good that people have custom data types using similarly-named operators. > >> it means, so we must not implement any new operator? > > No, it doesn't mean any such thing. If we invented, say, "int4 => int4" > it would not break someone's use of => for their own custom datatype. > What you're proposing would be a global redefinition of the meaning of =>.
it's not true, because anybody could to define own operator on buildin types - so every new operator is risk and carry problems. So only new operator on new types are safe. All others shoud be problem - an using of any well know world carries risks. > > This is closer to creating a new reserved word, which as I'm sure you > know we try hard to avoid, even for keywords that the spec says we can > reserve. The bar for making a new fully-reserved word that isn't in > the spec is *very* high. > what is problematic on GUC? We use it actually for it? So we should disable or enable named_params, and when this feature will be disabled, then pg will be 100% compatible. It's better then creating some strange syntax. regards Pavel > regards, tom lane > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
