On Mar 28, 2011, at 3:18 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On lör, 2011-03-26 at 09:41 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> You can't be guaranteed that they won't standardize something >> incompatible no matter what we do. We could choose to do it as you've >> proposed and they could then standardize some weird syntax - the => is >> a fairly relevant example of exactly that. > > The matter of how to resolve SQL parameter names is already > standardized. See clause on <identifier chain>.
Was there a final consensus on this? FWIW, if we go with using function name, it'd be nice to be allowed to alias that. I don't have a strong opinion between that and using : or $ or whatever. I do feel strongly that we must continue to support existing SQL functions in a reasonable fashion. Having the function blow up on the first invocation is no better than breaking the dump. There should be either a backwards-compatibility mode, or better yet, a way to automatically convert functions to be compatible with the new syntax. -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect j...@nasby.net 512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
