Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@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 <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ None of us is going to be here forever. +
