On Mar 25, 2011, at 11:23 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> If this were PL/perl, or PL/almost-anything-except-SQL, I could get
> behind such a proposal. But it's not, it's SQL; and SQL doesn't do
> things that way. SQL's idea of disambiguation is qualified names.
>
> And even more to the point: to the extent you think that weird syntax
> might be a suitable solution, you have to keep in mind that the SQL
> committee could take over any such syntax at the drop of a hat.
> See the recent unpleasantness concerning => ...
You can't be guaranteed that they won't standardize something incompatible no matter what we do. We could choose to do
itas you've proposed and they could then standardize some weird syntax - the => is a fairly relevant example of exactly
that.
...Robert
