Re: record identical operator

From: Rod Taylor <rod(dot)taylor(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>
Cc: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: record identical operator
Date: 2013-09-17 12:46:30
Message-ID: CAKddOFDjrq4v=8ngB23gn_vRkF2vDHXFVF6Rd+ETrKtXJkecCQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> wrote:

>
> Of course, that begs the question of whether == is already "taken".
> If not, we could knock one '=' off of everything above except for
> "equals". What existing uses are known for == ?
>

== is already taken as a common typo in plpgsql scripts. I strongly prefer
if this remained an error.

IF foo == bar THEN ...

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2013-09-17 12:52:59 Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup
Previous Message Arulappan, Arul Shaji 2013-09-17 12:43:14 Re: UTF8 national character data type support WIP patch and list of open issues.