2010/5/27 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 8:21 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> If we go with the spec's syntax I think we'd have no realistic choice
>>> except to forbid => altogether as an operator name. (And no, I'm not
>>> for that.)
>
>> I suppose the most painful thing about doing that is that it would
>> break hstore. Are there other commonly-used modules that rely on =>
>> as an operator name?
>
> There don't seem to be any other contrib modules that define => as an
> operator name, but I'm not sure what's out there on pgfoundry or
> elsewhere. The bigger issue to me is not so much hstore itself as that
> this is an awfully attractive operator name for anything container-ish.
> Wasn't the JSON-datatype proposal using => for an operator at one stage?
> (The current wiki page for it doesn't seem to reflect any such idea,
> though.) And I think I remember Oleg & Teodor proposing such an
> operator in conjunction with some GIN-related idea or other.
>
>> In spite of the difficulties, I'm reluctant to give up on it. I
>> always thought that the "AS" syntax was a crock and I'm not eager to
>> invent another crock to replace it. Being compatible with the SQL
>> standard and with Oracle is not to be taken lightly.
>
> Yeah, I know. Though this could end up being one of the bits of the
> spec that we politely decline to follow, like upper-casing identifiers.
> Still, it's a good idea to think again before we've set the release
> in stone ...
we have a last minutes for decision. any other change will need years
- like 'standard strings'. I agree so it's not good time for change.
But this change is a few lines in parser.
Regards
Pavel
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>