| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| 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 15:59:09 |
| Message-ID: | 20130918155909.GS2706@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Andres Freund (andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> I think this really needs to have an obscure name. Like ==!!== or
> somesuch (is equal very much, but doesn't actually test for equality ;))
hah.
> > 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 :(
Ugh. This feels like a pretty ugly hack to deal with that. I haven't
got any magical wand to address it, but making an SQL operator for 'are
these really the same bytes' to deal with what is essentially
implementation detail is _very_ grotty.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-09-18 16:05:32 | Re: record identical operator |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-09-18 15:54:52 | Re: record identical operator |