From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Boolean operators without commutators vs. ALL/ANY |
Date: | 2011-06-17 14:47:19 |
Message-ID: | 4DFB68F7.2040605@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/17/2011 10:20 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> alvherre=# \doS ~
>
> Listado de operadores
> Esquema | Nombre | Tipo arg izq | Tipo arg der | Tipo resultado | Descripción
> ------------+--------+--------------+--------------+----------------+--------------------------------------------
> ...
> pg_catalog | ~ | text | text | boolean | matches regular expression, case-sensitive
>
> Note that there's no way to tell which is the regex here. It'd be a lot
> better if the description was explicit about it. (Or, alternatively,
> use a different data type for regexes than plain text ... but that has
> been in the Todo list for years ...)
+1 for improving the description.
>
> Have ~ keep its existing semantics, use ~= for the commutator? There
> are a lot more chars allowed in operator names anyway, it doesn't seem
> to me like we need to limit ourselves to ~, = and @.
Yeah, maybe something like ~< for the commutator. (I know, we're
bikeshedding somewhat.)
> I *do* like the idea of having commutate-ability for ANY/ALL, having
> needed it a couple of times in the past.
>
Indeed. me too.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Florian Pflug | 2011-06-17 14:49:46 | Re: Boolean operators without commutators vs. ALL/ANY |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-06-17 14:45:12 | Re: [HACKERS] Issues with generate_series using integer boundaries |