Re: proposal: ANSI SQL 2011 syntax for named parameters - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: proposal: ANSI SQL 2011 syntax for named parameters
Date
Msg-id CAFj8pRBd60BxNXN+wnRG8uYzXEC_hFzXQERc3FdUqUXEEt1vpA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: proposal: ANSI SQL 2011 syntax for named parameters  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: proposal: ANSI SQL 2011 syntax for named parameters  (Gavin Flower <GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz>)
List pgsql-hackers
2013/1/2 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am not sure, but maybe is time to introduce ANSI SQL syntax for
>> functions' named parameters
>>
>> It is defined in ANSI SQL 2011
>>
>>  CALL P (B => 1, A => 2)
>>
>> instead PostgreSQL syntax CALL ( B := 1, A := 2)
>
> Keep in mind that, as recently as PostgreSQL 9.1, we shipped hstore
> with a =>(text, text) operator.  That operator was deprecated in 9.0,
> but it wasn't actually removed until PostgreSQL 9.2.  Whenever we do
> this, it's going to break things for anyone who hasn't yet upgraded
> from hstore v1.0 to hstore v1.1.  So I would prefer to wait one more
> release.  That way, anyone who does an upgrade, say, every other major
> release cycle should have a reasonably clean upgrade path.
>
> I realize that the 4+-year journey toward allowing => rather than :=
> probably seems tedious to many people by now, but I think the cautious
> path we've taken is entirely warranted.  As much as I want us to be
> standards-compliant in this area, I also want us to not break any more
> user applications than necessary along the way.
>
> Incidentally, I think there are two changes here which should be
> considered independently.  One, allowing => rather than := for
> specifying named parameters.  And two, adding a statement called CALL
> that can be used to invoke a function.  Maybe those are both good
> ideas and maybe they aren't, but they're independent.
>

can I recapitulate a plan?

* enabling '=>' in 9.4
* we will support ':=' too

What we can (or have to) do now?

Regards

Pavel



> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kohei KaiGai
Date:
Subject: Re: ALTER command reworks
Next
From: Hannu Krosing
Date:
Subject: Re: cannot move relocatable extension out of pg_catalog schema