Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > > Are we sure we want hstore compatibility to drive this decision?
> >
> > hstore is what it is, and has been that way for a long time. We can't
> > just ignore it. And I don't think breaking it (and probably other code)
> > on zero notice is an acceptable outcome.
>
> Well, it seems we are going to be stuck supporting => because it is hard
> to argue that the SQL standards committee should adopt := instead of =>
> because of hstore. ;-)
>
> I hate eventually having two documented ways of doing something, but it
> appears by releasing := we are doing exactly that.
>
> Is telling hstore users they have to change => to something else such a
> large major version incompatibility that it is worth supporting and
> documenting two syntaxes for parameter assignment? It is that calculus
> that has me questioning our approach.
Thinking some more, what is the value of keeping => in hstore for 9.0?
Perhaps we could create a script they could run on 8.4 that would add
support for the new hstore operator to replace =>, and then they can
upgrade to 9.0 when they are ready. I see only three mentions of => in
hstore.sql. Do we really want to keep the := baggage forever just for
hstore?
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ None of us is going to be here forever. +
