On Oct 6, 2011, at 10:46 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.
The only reason it would be required, I think, is if the SQL standard developed some other use for that operator.
> 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.
Makes sense.
Best,
David
