Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > Are we sure we want hstore compatibility to drive this decision? > > hstore is what it is, and has been that way for a long time. We can't > just ignore it. And I don't think breaking it (and probably other code) > on zero notice is an acceptable outcome.
Well, it seems we are going to be stuck supporting => because it is hard to argue that the SQL standards committee should adopt := instead of => because of hstore. ;-) I hate eventually having two documented ways of doing something, but it appears by releasing := we are doing exactly that. Is telling hstore users they have to change => to something else such a large major version incompatibility that it is worth supporting and documenting two syntaxes for parameter assignment? It is that calculus that has me questioning our approach. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + None of us is going to be here forever. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
