| From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: record identical operator |
| Date: | 2013-09-16 17:58:01 |
| Message-ID: | 1379354281.67271.YahooMailNeo@web162906.mail.bf1.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2013-09-16 10:46:53 -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> I don't recall seeing anyone posting
>> regarding the existing undocumented record comparison operators.
>> Nor do I recall seeing anyone posting about the undocumented
>> pattern comparison operators.
>
> I've used and have seen them being used in client code...
Which, the record operators or the text pattern operators (which
ignore collations and multi-byte character considerations and just
use memcmp())?
Is the fact that you have seen them used in client code even though
they are not documented an argument for or against adding
documentation for them?
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-09-16 18:05:42 | Re: record identical operator |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-09-16 17:49:01 | Re: record identical operator |