Greg Stark wrote: > On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Not breaking hstore, as well as any third-party modules that might be > > using that operator name. ?Did you not absorb any of the discussion > > so far? > > > > In fairness most of the discussion about breaking hstore was prior to > our learning that the sql committee had gone so far into the weeds. > > If => is sql standard syntax then perhaps that changes the calculus. > It's no longer a matter of supporting some oracle-specific syntax that > diverges from sqlish syntax and conflicts with our syntax. Instead > it's a question of our operator syntax conflicting with the sql > standard. > > Part of the earlier discussion was about how => was a tempting > operator name and other users may well have chosen it precisely > because it's so evocative. But we don't actually have any evidence of > that. Does anyone have any experience seeing => operators in the wild?
Tangentially, I think the SQL committee chose => because the value, then variable, ordering is so unintuitive, and I think they wanted that ordering because most function calls use values so they wanted the variable at the end. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
