Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Now that I've started to read this patch ... exactly what is the
>> argument for allowing a "mixed" notation (some of the parameters named
>> and some not)? ISTM that just serves to complicate both the patch
>> and the user's-eye view, for no real benefit.
> Wow, I can't imagine not supporting that. Doesn't every language that
> supports anything like named parameters also support a mix?
I don't know if that's true, and I definitely don't know if they all
handle corner cases identically. I think this patch is an exercise in
guessing at what the SQL committee will eventually do, and as such, we
should avoid like the plague making any guesses that carry significant
risk of being semantically incompatible with what they eventually do.
The risk/reward ratio isn't good enough.
regards, tom lane
