Re: WIP: default values for function parameters
От | Pavel Stehule |
---|---|
Тема | Re: WIP: default values for function parameters |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 162867790812090740y21f25c65nd23ed7f56d7471e2@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: WIP: default values for function parameters (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: WIP: default values for function parameters
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
2008/12/9 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > "Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes: >> 2008/12/9 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>: >>> If you could prove that it were *only* being used by this contrib module >>> then I might hold still for replacing it. But you can't. The odds are >>> good that people have custom data types using similarly-named operators. > >> it means, so we must not implement any new operator? > > No, it doesn't mean any such thing. If we invented, say, "int4 => int4" > it would not break someone's use of => for their own custom datatype. > What you're proposing would be a global redefinition of the meaning of =>. it's not true, because anybody could to define own operator on buildin types - so every new operator is risk and carry problems. So only new operator on new types are safe. All others shoud be problem - an using of any well know world carries risks. > > This is closer to creating a new reserved word, which as I'm sure you > know we try hard to avoid, even for keywords that the spec says we can > reserve. The bar for making a new fully-reserved word that isn't in > the spec is *very* high. > what is problematic on GUC? We use it actually for it? So we should disable or enable named_params, and when this feature will be disabled, then pg will be 100% compatible. It's better then creating some strange syntax. regards Pavel > regards, tom lane >
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: