2009/8/7 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Bernd Helmle <mailings@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
We should support both syntax - in future. I afraid so we will thing
up nothing new now. The arguments against to '=>' are valid still.
This syntax (with "AS") doesn't break anything in future. PostgreSQL
could to support both (default with AS) and via GUC standard (like
standard_conforming_strings)
Pavel
>
