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

Re: TODO item - tid <> operator

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(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 14:49:59
Message-ID: 200510251449.j9PEnxk24452@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

tid should be a fully functional type, at least for = and !=.

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

Agreed.

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

OK.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-10-25 15:12:48
Subject: Re: Release notes typo
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-10-25 14:21:53
Subject: Re: TODO item - tid <> operator

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