Tom Lane wrote:
> The SQL standard uses "=" for assignment in other contexts,
> most notably UPDATE, but also the SQL/PSM standard uses it in
> which is the exact same thing as in
> pl/pgsql. So while purists might wish we only accepted :=, doing
> so would be inconsistent with SQL.
>
> I think
David Johnston writes:
> A bogus warning is nearly as bad as simply disallowing the syntax in the
> first place and I do not like turning one on unless there is the decision to
> disallow the syntax in the future.
TBH I do not see this happening. GET DIAGNOSTICS is just the tip of the
iceberg.
Chris Travers-5 wrote
> My preference would be that at some point we start adding warnings when =
> is used as an assignment. Such warnings could be turned off. Then at
> some
> later point we can decide whether to change the behavior. A decision to
> changing the language would be different if
>
> A comment was made that "GET DIAGNOSTICS var = item;" is standard defined.
> Is the use of ":=" for assignment also standard defined? If so its not that
> inconsistent standards surprise me but...anyway.
":=" coming from different world (ALGOL like languages) and is never
used in SQL. Oracle
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 2:52 AM, David Johnston wrote:
> Chris Travers-5 wrote
> > However = as assignment is particularly odd to me for two reasons. First
> > it is not ambiguous but it leads to difficult to read constructs, like
> > this:
> >
> >out_var = in_left = in_right;
>
> Agreed but
Chris Travers-5 wrote
> However = as assignment is particularly odd to me for two reasons. First
> it is not ambiguous but it leads to difficult to read constructs, like
> this:
>
>out_var = in_left = in_right;
Agreed but the genie is already out of the bottle and I am OK with something
at t
2013/6/1 Chris Travers :
> Agreed about undocumented behavior (actually there is a *lot* of
> undocumented behavior in PostgreSQL as I have slowly found out-- if you want
> to see a lot of it, go look at the pg_dump source code).
>
> However = as assignment is particularly odd to me for two reasons
Agreed about undocumented behavior (actually there is a *lot* of
undocumented behavior in PostgreSQL as I have slowly found out-- if you
want to see a lot of it, go look at the pg_dump source code).
However = as assignment is particularly odd to me for two reasons. First
it is not ambiguous but i
2013/6/1 David Johnston :
> Tom Lane-2 wrote
>> Stephen Frost <
>
>> sfrost@
>
>> > writes:
>>> * Moshe Jacobson (
>
>> moshe@
>
>> ) wrote:
Any PG committers who can change this in 9.3?
>>
>>> It will certainly not be changed for 9.3.
>>
>> IMO, if we do anything about this at all, it should
Tom Lane-2 wrote
> Stephen Frost <
> sfrost@
> > writes:
>> * Moshe Jacobson (
> moshe@
> ) wrote:
>>> Any PG committers who can change this in 9.3?
>
>> It will certainly not be changed for 9.3.
>
> IMO, if we do anything about this at all, it should be to document the
> "=" option not remov
2013/6/1 Tom Lane :
> Stephen Frost writes:
>> * Moshe Jacobson (mo...@neadwerx.com) wrote:
>>> Any PG committers who can change this in 9.3?
>
>> It will certainly not be changed for 9.3.
>
> IMO, if we do anything about this at all, it should be to document the
> "=" option not remove it. If we
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Moshe Jacobson (mo...@neadwerx.com) wrote:
>> Any PG committers who can change this in 9.3?
> It will certainly not be changed for 9.3.
IMO, if we do anything about this at all, it should be to document the
"=" option not remove it. If we change it, the squawks from pe
2013/5/28 Steve Crawford :
> On 05/28/2013 01:06 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>>
>> * Moshe Jacobson (mo...@neadwerx.com) wrote:
>>>
>>> It seems that the comparison operator "=" is functioning as the
>>> assignment
>>> operator ":=" in this plpgsql trigger script I wrote. I was under the
>>> impressio
Hello
2013/5/28 Moshe Jacobson :
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>>
>> Both are supported. It's not really documented as using '=' is
>> considered 'legacy' but it's also extensively used and removing it would
>> break quite a bit of code for people.
>
>
> This is crazy!
On 05/28/2013 01:06 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Moshe Jacobson (mo...@neadwerx.com) wrote:
It seems that the comparison operator "=" is functioning as the assignment
operator ":=" in this plpgsql trigger script I wrote. I was under the
impression that "=" is only for comparison and not assignment
* Moshe Jacobson (mo...@neadwerx.com) wrote:
> Any PG committers who can change this in 9.3?
It will certainly not be changed for 9.3.
As suggested, perhaps in 10.0, but I tend to doubt it. It will
certainly be mentioned in the release notes when it happens.
Thanks,
Ste
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Both are supported. It's not really documented as using '=' is
> considered 'legacy' but it's also extensively used and removing it would
> break quite a bit of code for people.
>
This is crazy! By leaving it in, they are allowing my obsol
2013/5/28 Stephen Frost :
> * Moshe Jacobson (mo...@neadwerx.com) wrote:
>> It seems that the comparison operator "=" is functioning as the assignment
>> operator ":=" in this plpgsql trigger script I wrote. I was under the
>> impression that "=" is only for comparison and not assignment. If this i
* Moshe Jacobson (mo...@neadwerx.com) wrote:
> It seems that the comparison operator "=" is functioning as the assignment
> operator ":=" in this plpgsql trigger script I wrote. I was under the
> impression that "=" is only for comparison and not assignment. If this is
> true, please explain the tr
Dear PostgreSQL gurus,
It seems that the comparison operator "=" is functioning as the assignment
operator ":=" in this plpgsql trigger script I wrote. I was under the
impression that "=" is only for comparison and not assignment. If this is
true, please explain the transcript below. If it's not t
20 matches
Mail list logo
