Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: TODO item - tid <> operator

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>,Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: TODO item - tid <> operator
Date: 2005-10-25 14:21:53
Message-ID: 13758.1130250113@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> This has been saved for the 8.2 release:
> 	http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold

Uh, why do we need this at all?  "NOT (tid = tid)" covers the
functionality already.

I disagree strongly with renumbering existing hand-assigned OIDs for
this.  There's too much risk of breakage and no benefit.

Also, you forgot to add the negator cross-links between the operators.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-10-25 14:49:59
Subject: Re: TODO item - tid <> operator
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-10-25 13:50:35
Subject: Re: TODO item - tid <> operator

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group