Dennis Bjorklund <db@zigo.dhs.org> writes:
> I kind of like AS also now after thinking about it. The only reason for =>
> is that oracle used it, nothing else.
Peter Eisentraut pointed out to me that I'd missed a conflicting feature
in SQL99: that spec uses "value AS type" in some function-call contexts.
It's essentially a cast without the CAST() decoration. (See
<SQL argument list> and <generalized expression>.)
I'm not sure if we'll ever get around to implementing SQL99's ideas
about user-defined types; they seem pretty bizarre. But it is probably
unwise to select a directly conflicting syntax for parameter names.
So, back to the drawing board ... what else can we use?
regards, tom lane