Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of mié may 26 18:52:33 -0400 2010: > I think we should fix it now. Quick thought: maybe we could use FOR > instead of AS: select myfunc(7 for a, 6 for b); IIRC the standard's > mechanism for this is 'paramname => value', but I think that has > problems because of our possibly use of => as an operator - otherwise > that would be by far the best way to go.
I think we were refraining from => because the standard didn't specify this back then -- AFAIU this was introduced very recently. But now that it does, and that the syntax we're implementing conflicts with a different feature, it seems wise to use the standard-mandated syntax. The problem with the => operator seems best resolved as not accepting such an operator in a function parameter, which sucks but we don't seem to have a choice. Perhaps we could allow "=>" to resolve as the operator for the case the user really needs to use it; or a schema-qualified operator. -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
