On Mar 27, 2011, at 6:11 AM, Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> That syntax is sufficiently unwieldly that few people will want to use >> it in real life, but certainly the backward compatibility problem is >> much less than with what Tom proposed. > > Well, we would still support positional arguments like $1 $2 etc, right?
Yeah, that's not going away. ...Robert
