Re: record identical operator - Review

From: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>
To: Steve Singer <steve(at)ssinger(dot)info>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: record identical operator - Review
Date: 2013-09-30 13:08:12
Message-ID: 1380546492.6460.YahooMailNeo@web162902.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Steve Singer <steve(at)ssinger(dot)info> wrote:

> How about
>
>   To support matching of rows which include elements without a default
>     B-tree operator class, the following operators are defined for composite
>     type comparison:
>     <literal>*=</>,
>     <literal>*&lt;&gt;</>,
>     <literal>*&lt;</>,
>     <literal>*&lt;=</>,
>     <literal>*&gt;</>, and
>     <literal>*&gt;=</>.
>
> These operators compare the internal binary representation of the two
> rows.  Two rows might have a different binary representation even
> though comparisons of the two rows with the equality operator is true.
> The ordering of rows under these comparision operators is deterministic
> but not otherwise meaningful.  These operators are used internally for
> materialized views and might be useful for other specialized purposes
> such as replication but are not intended to be generally useful for
> writing queries.

I agree that's an improvement.  Thanks!

--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2013-09-30 13:15:00 Re: [PERFORM] Cpu usage 100% on slave. s_lock problem.
Previous Message Vik Fearing 2013-09-30 11:47:21 Re: [PATCH] pg_sleep(interval)