On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 02:12:49PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > Oh, I think you are right. I have reverted the patch. Attached is
> > proposed documentation for '='.
>
> Meh. Variable initialization is only one of multiple cases (assignment,
> GET DIAGNOSTICS; maybe others, I've not examined the grammar). Also,
> if we do it like this, we're implying that both := and = are equally
> preferred, which might not be the impression we want to leave.
>
> I'd be a bit inclined to just stick a NOTE somewhere saying that "="
> can be used in place of ":=" for assignment.
OK, here is an updated doc patch that does that. The next question is
whether we want examples using '=' instead of ':='? Right now we have
them, and Pavel's patch removed them.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +