| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: ILIKE |
| Date: | 2003-02-24 04:31:22 |
| Message-ID: | 26885.1046061082@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> - Some other databases support ILIKE and it makes porting easier.
Which other ones? I checked our archives and found that when we were
discussing adding ILIKE, it was claimed that Oracle had it. But I can't
find anything on the net to verify that claim. I did find that mSQL
(not MySQL) had it, as far back as 1996. Nothing else seems to --- but
Google did provide a lot of hits on pages saying that ILIKE is a mighty
handy Postgres-ism ;-)
> Why this sudden urge to prune away perfectly useful operators?
My feeling too. Whatever you may think of its usefulness, it's been a
documented feature since 7.1. It's a bit late to reconsider.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John Cochran | 2003-02-24 06:23:52 | Re: regression failure - horology |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-02-24 03:29:22 | Re: Loss of cluster status |