"David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com> writes:
>>> Would it then be added as an alias for := for named function parameters? Or would that come still later?
>> Once we do that, it will be impossible not merely deprecated to use =>
>> as an operator name. I think that has to wait at least another release
>> cycle or two past where we're using it ourselves.
> Okay. I kind of like := so there's no rush AFAIC. :-)
Hmm ... actually, that raises another issue that I'm not sure whether
there's consensus for or not. Are we intending to keep name := value
syntax forever, as an alternative to the standard name => value syntax?
I can't immediately see a reason not to, other than the "it's not
standard" argument.
Because if we *are* going to keep it forever, there's no very good
reason why we shouldn't accept this plpgsql cursor patch now. We'd
just have to remember to extend plpgsql to take => at the same time
we do that for core function calls.
regards, tom lane
