From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Boolean operators without commutators vs. ALL/ANY |
Date: | 2011-06-16 18:14:18 |
Message-ID: | 6357.1308248058@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I'm having trouble avoiding the conclusion that we're trying to shove
> a round peg into a square hole. The idea that we have to have a
> commutator for every operator just because we don't handle left and
> right symmetrically sits poorly with me. I can't really argue with
> your statement that it's the easiest way to address Florian's gripe,
> but because it almost surely is. But it still feels like a kludge.
> The syntax foo = ANY(bar) is really quite a poorly-designed syntax,
> because the top-level operation is really "ANY", and it has three
> arguments: foo, =, bar. If the SQL committee had standardized on
> ANY(foo = $0, bar) or some such thing we wouldn't be having this
> conversation.
[ shrug... ] Take it up with the committee. The syntax is what it is,
and we should select our operators to fit it, not vice versa.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexey Klyukin | 2011-06-16 18:14:42 | Re: proposal: a validator for configuration files |
Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2011-06-16 18:13:02 | Re: WIP: Fast GiST index build |