On 27/05/10 02:09, alvherre wrote:
> Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of mié may 26 18:52:33 -0400 2010:
>
>> I think we should fix it now. Quick thought: maybe we could use FOR
>> instead of AS: select myfunc(7 for a, 6 for b); IIRC the standard's
>> mechanism for this is 'paramname => value', but I think that has
>> problems because of our possibly use of => as an operator - otherwise
>> that would be by far the best way to go.
>
> I think we were refraining from => because the standard didn't specify
> this back then -- AFAIU this was introduced very recently. But now that
> it does, and that the syntax we're implementing conflicts with a
> different feature, it seems wise to use the standard-mandated syntax.
>
> The problem with the => operator seems best resolved as not accepting
> such an operator in a function parameter, which sucks but we don't seem
> to have a choice. Perhaps we could allow "=>" to resolve as the
> operator for the case the user really needs to use it; or a
> schema-qualified operator.
AFAIU, the standard doesn't say anything about named parameters. Oracle
uses =>, but as you said, that's ambiguous with the => operator.
+1 for FOR.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com