Re: Row-wise Comparison

From: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
To: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Row-wise Comparison
Date: 2013-09-16 22:22:50
Message-ID: 20130916222250.GA314338@tornado.leadboat.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 02:32:56PM -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> The operators and sequencing involving actual records seems to be
> different from that for row value constructors, and it appears to
> be for good reason -- so that indexing will work correctly.
>
> My questions:
>
> Did I miss somewhere that the docs do cover this?

I, too, don't see it.

> If not, do we want to describe it?  Why not?

+1 for documenting it. We document <, >, <=, >=, =, and <> generically[1].
Several types that make non-obvious decisions for those operators (float8,
range types, arrays) document those decisions. "record" hasn't done so, but
it should.

> If we don't want to document the above, would the same arguments
> apply to the operators I'm adding?  (i.e., Do we want to avoid docs
> on these, possibly on the basis of them being an internal
> implementation detail?)

Separate decision, IMO. See progress on the more-recent thread.

[1] http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/functions-comparison.html

--
Noah Misch
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2013-09-16 22:26:08 Re: record identical operator
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2013-09-16 22:04:32 Re: [PATCH] Revive line type