Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Some people think a "sql syntax solution" is needed, and some do not.
> >>
> > So does this get resolved by a vote?
>
> A vote is a little premature when we don't have fully-developed
> alternatives to choose from. The psql "literal" proposal is fairly
> squishy around the edges (no one's written down an exact spec), while
> the camp that wants a sql-syntax solution has not gotten further than
> wishing. The COPY camp is touting their answer as applicable to more
> than psql, but I haven't seen any explanation of exactly how it would be
> useful (or better than existing approaches) in non-psql frontends. The
> only specific use-case that's been presented for it is psql scripts.
>
> The discussion so far today seems to be entirely a rehash of arguments
> already made (and in many cases already rebutted). Rather than wasting
> list bandwidth with this, I think each camp ought to go off and do their
> homework. Give us *details* of how your solution would work.
Another idea would be to enable another set of quoting characters, like:
CREATE FUNCTION xx ...
<--
x = 'fred';
...
-->
and have the lexer understand those new quoting characters. We just use
'' too much in function bodies to use that also for quoting the function
text. Of course, '<--' would have no special meaning inside a quoted
string, so we are only eliminating their use as custom operators, and I
think that is reasonable.
Having heard all the other proposals, I think this will be the clearest.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
