Re: record identical operator

* Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> Therefore, I see no harm in
> having an operator that tests for
> are-these-values-identical-for-all-purposes. If that's useful for
> RMVC, then there may be other legitimate uses for it as well.
>
> And once we decide that's OK, I think we ought to document it. Sure,
> it's a little confusing, but we can explain it, I think. It's a good
> opportunity to point out to people that, most of the time, they really
> want something else, like the equality operator for the default btree
> opclass.

For my 2c on this, while this can be useful for *us*, and maybe folks
hacking pretty close to PG, I can't get behind introducing this as an
'===' or some such operator. I've missed why this can't be a simple
function and why in the world we would want to encourage users to use
this by making it look like a normal language construct of SQL, which
damn well better consider numbers which are equal in value to be equal,
regardless of their representation.

What the heck is the use case for this being a user-oriented, SQL
operator..?

Thanks,

Stephen