Re: [HACKERS] proposal: disallow operator "=>" and use it for named parameters

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 9:11 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 02:51:30PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Pavel Stehule >> wrote: >> > 1. funcname_signature_string >> > 2. get_rule_expr >> >> Thanks. Patch attached. I'll commit this if there are n

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: disallow operator "=>" and use it for named parameters

On 01/05/15 15:17, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 03:13:28PM +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: On 01/05/15 15:01, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 05:25:53AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: It is done Uh, I am not sure why you say that as I don't see any commit related to this

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: disallow operator "=>" and use it for named parameters

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 03:13:28PM +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 01/05/15 15:01, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 05:25:53AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: > >>It is done > > > >Uh, I am not sure why you say that as I don't see any commit related to > >this. Can you show me the commi

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: disallow operator "=>" and use it for named parameters

On 01/05/15 15:01, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 05:25:53AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: It is done Uh, I am not sure why you say that as I don't see any commit related to this. Can you show me the commit? 865f14a2d31af23a05bbf2df04c274629c5d5c4d -- Petr Jelinek

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: disallow operator "=>" and use it for named parameters

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 05:25:53AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: > It is done Uh, I am not sure why you say that as I don't see any commit related to this. Can you show me the commit? --- > > Dne 1.5.2015 3:11 napsal uživat

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: disallow operator "=>" and use it for named parameters

It is done Dne 1.5.2015 3:11 napsal uživatel "Bruce Momjian" : > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 02:51:30PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Pavel Stehule > wrote: > > > 1. funcname_signature_string > > > 2. get_rule_expr > > > > Thanks. Patch attached. I'll commit this if

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: disallow operator "=>" and use it for named parameters

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 02:51:30PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Pavel Stehule > wrote: > > 1. funcname_signature_string > > 2. get_rule_expr > > Thanks. Patch attached. I'll commit this if there are no objections. Robert, are you going to apply this? -- Bru

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: disallow operator "=>" and use it for named parameters

Kevin Grittner writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Presumably we are going to change it at some point; maybe we >> should just do it rather than waiting another 5 years. > +1 > It has been deprecated long enough that I don't see the point of waiting. Uh, just to clarify, this has nothing to do with h

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: disallow operator "=>" and use it for named parameters

Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Was there any consideration given to whether ruleutils should start >>> printing NamedArgExprs with "=>"? Or do we think that needs to wait? >> >> I have to admit that I didn't consider that. What do

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: disallow operator "=>" and use it for named parameters

2015-03-10 17:07 GMT+01:00 Petr Jelinek : > On 10/03/15 17:01, Pavel Stehule wrote: > >> >> >> 2015-03-10 16:50 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane > >: >> >> Robert Haas mailto:robertmh...@gmail.com>> >> writes: >> >> > Committed with a few documentation tweaks. >> >> Wa

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: disallow operator "=>" and use it for named parameters

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > 1. funcname_signature_string > 2. get_rule_expr Thanks. Patch attached. I'll commit this if there are no objections. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company named-expr-fixes.patch Desc

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: disallow operator "=>" and use it for named parameters

2015-03-10 19:02 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane : > Kevin Grittner writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Presumably we are going to change it at some point; maybe we > >> should just do it rather than waiting another 5 years. > > > +1 > > > It has been deprecated long enough that I don't see the point of waiting

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: disallow operator "=>" and use it for named parameters

Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Was there any consideration given to whether ruleutils should start >> printing NamedArgExprs with "=>"? Or do we think that needs to wait? > I have to admit that I didn't consider that. What do you think? I > guess I'

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: disallow operator "=>" and use it for named parameters

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Pavel Stehule >> wrote: >>> I am marking this as Ready For Committer, the patch is trivial and works >>> as expected, there is nothing to be added to it IMHO. >>> >>> The "=>" operator wa

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: disallow operator "=>" and use it for named parameters

On 10/03/15 17:01, Pavel Stehule wrote: 2015-03-10 16:50 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>>: Robert Haas mailto:robertmh...@gmail.com>> writes: > Committed with a few documentation tweaks. Was there any consideration given to whether ruleutils should start pri

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: disallow operator "=>" and use it for named parameters

2015-03-10 16:50 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane : > Robert Haas writes: > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Pavel Stehule > wrote: > >> I am marking this as Ready For Committer, the patch is trivial and works > >> as expected, there is nothing to be added to it IMHO. > >> > >> The "=>" operator was depreca

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: disallow operator "=>" and use it for named parameters

Robert Haas writes: > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Pavel Stehule > wrote: >> I am marking this as Ready For Committer, the patch is trivial and works >> as expected, there is nothing to be added to it IMHO. >> >> The "=>" operator was deprecated for several years so it should not be too >>

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: disallow operator "=>" and use it for named parameters

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: >> I am marking this as Ready For Committer, the patch is trivial and works >> as expected, there is nothing to be added to it IMHO. >> >> The "=>" operator was deprecated for several years so it should not be too >> controversial either. Comm

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: disallow operator "=>" and use it for named parameters

2015-02-19 16:06 GMT+01:00 Petr Jelinek : > On 19/01/15 17:14, Pavel Stehule wrote: > >> >> >> 2015-01-19 14:27 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas > >: >> >> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 2:59 AM, Pavel Stehule >> mailto:pavel.steh...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> I think you sho

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: disallow operator "=>" and use it for named parameters

On 19/01/15 17:14, Pavel Stehule wrote: 2015-01-19 14:27 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas mailto:robertmh...@gmail.com>>: On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 2:59 AM, Pavel Stehule mailto:pavel.steh...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> I think you should just remove the WARNING, not change it to an error. >> If

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: disallow operator "=>" and use it for named parameters

2015-01-19 14:27 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas : > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 2:59 AM, Pavel Stehule > wrote: > >> I think you should just remove the WARNING, not change it to an error. > >> If somebody wants to quote the operator name to be able to continue > >> using it, I think that's OK. > > > > It look

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: disallow operator "=>" and use it for named parameters

2015-01-19 14:30 GMT+01:00 Alvaro Herrera : > Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > It looks so quoting doesn't help here > > > > + CREATE OPERATOR "=>" ( > > +leftarg = int8,<--><-->-- right unary > > +procedure = numeric_fac > > + ); > > + ERROR: syntax error at or near "(" > > + LINE 1: CREAT

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: disallow operator "=>" and use it for named parameters

Pavel Stehule wrote: > It looks so quoting doesn't help here > > + CREATE OPERATOR "=>" ( > +leftarg = int8,<--><-->-- right unary > +procedure = numeric_fac > + ); > + ERROR: syntax error at or near "(" > + LINE 1: CREATE OPERATOR "=>" ( > + ^ Does it w

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: disallow operator "=>" and use it for named parameters

On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 2:59 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: >> I think you should just remove the WARNING, not change it to an error. >> If somebody wants to quote the operator name to be able to continue >> using it, I think that's OK. > > It looks so quoting doesn't help here > > + CREATE OPERATOR "=>

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: disallow operator "=>" and use it for named parameters

2015-01-19 4:54 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas : > On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Pavel Stehule > wrote: > > two years a operator "=>" is marked as deprecated (from PostgreSQL 9.2). > > > > Isn't time to use it for named parameters now (for PostgreSQL 9.5) ? > > I'm cool with that. It's possible that t

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: disallow operator "=>" and use it for named parameters

2015-01-19 4:54 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas : > On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Pavel Stehule > wrote: > > two years a operator "=>" is marked as deprecated (from PostgreSQL 9.2). > > > > Isn't time to use it for named parameters now (for PostgreSQL 9.5) ? > > I'm cool with that. It's possible that t

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: disallow operator "=>" and use it for named parameters

On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > two years a operator "=>" is marked as deprecated (from PostgreSQL 9.2). > > Isn't time to use it for named parameters now (for PostgreSQL 9.5) ? I'm cool with that. It's possible that there are installations out there that still have => op

[HACKERS] proposal: disallow operator "=>" and use it for named parameters

Hello two years a operator "=>" is marked as deprecated (from PostgreSQL 9.2). Isn't time to use it for named parameters now (for PostgreSQL 9.5) ? I am sending a implementation where syntax based on "=>" symbol is second (but preferred) variant of ":=" syntax .. syntax ":=" will be supported st