Re: record identical operator - Review

On 09/30/2013 09:08 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Steve Singer <steve(at)ssinger(dot)info> wrote:
>
>> How about
>>
>> To support matching of rows which include elements without a default
>> B-tree operator class, the following operators are defined for composite
>> type comparison:
>> <literal>*=</>,
>> <literal>*&lt;&gt;</>,
>> <literal>*&lt;</>,
>> <literal>*&lt;=</>,
>> <literal>*&gt;</>, and
>> <literal>*&gt;=</>.
>>
>> These operators compare the internal binary representation of the two
>> rows. Two rows might have a different binary representation even
>> though comparisons of the two rows with the equality operator is true.
>> The ordering of rows under these comparision operators is deterministic
>> but not otherwise meaningful. These operators are used internally for
>> materialized views and might be useful for other specialized purposes
>> such as replication but are not intended to be generally useful for
>> writing queries.
> I agree that's an improvement. Thanks!

Are there any outstanding issues on this patch preventing it from being
committed?
I think we have discussed this patch enough such that we now have
consensus on proceeding with adding a record identical operator to SQL.
No one has objected to the latest names of the operators.

You haven't adjusted the patch to reduce the duplication between the
equality and comparison functions, if you disagree with me and feel that
doing so would increase the code complexity and be inconsistent with how
we do things elsewhere that is fine.

Steve

> --
> Kevin Grittner
> EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
>