On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Bernd Helmle <maili...@oopsware.de> writes: >> Here again a patch version with updated documentation. I will stop >> reviewing this patch now and mark this ready for committer, so we have some >> time left to incorporate additional feedback. > > I'm starting to look at this now, and my very first reaction was > "what in the world is a leaky list?". I'm not sure I like the > data structure itself, but the terminology is certainly completely > unhelpful. Can't you come up with something better than > "continuous/leaky"?
Stepping back a bit, are we sure this is a feature we even want to support? It was already pointed out in the thread on "Parser's hook based on funccall" that SQL:201x may standardize => for this purpose. I realize that's a problem because of the possibility of a user-defined operator named =>, but aren't we usually reluctant to adopt syntax that is thought likely to be incompatible with current or future SQL standards? http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-07/msg01715.php ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
