Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> writes:
>> po 24. 2. 2025 v 21:05 odesÃlatel Gilles Darold <gil...@darold.net>
>> napsal:
>>> I think it could be ready to be committed.
Pushed with a docs/test correction: this also affects the syntax
of FOR-over-cursor.
>>> Note for the committer: does it make sense to mention in the
>>> documentation that this standard SQL/PSM syntax is preferred than the PG
>>> syntax?
> I modified doc in same manner like function's named arguments are described
I didn't especially care for this change and didn't include it. We've
had the := syntax for decades and aren't likely to ever remove it,
so why start acting like it's deprecated?
regards, tom lane
