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
betweenthat and using : or $ or whatever. I do feel strongly that we must continue to support existing SQL functions in
areasonable fashion. Having the function blow up on the first invocation is no better than breaking the dump. There
shouldbe either a backwards-compatibility mode, or better yet, a way to automatically convert functions to be
compatiblewith the new syntax.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect jim@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
