| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, 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: | 2013-09-18 15:53:07 |
| Message-ID: | 20130918155307.GE22364@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-09-18 11:50:23 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> 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.
I certainly understand the feeling...
I think this really needs to have an obscure name. Like ==!!== or
somesuch (is equal very much, but doesn't actually test for equality ;))
> What the heck is the use case for this being a user-oriented, SQL
> operator..?
The materalized view code uses generated SQL, so it has to be SQL
accessible. And it needs to be an operator because the join planning
code requires that :(
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-09-18 15:54:52 | Re: record identical operator |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-09-18 15:50:23 | Re: record identical operator |