Re: Boolean operators without commutators vs. ALL/ANY

Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> writes:
> Well, I think there are basically three choices here, kludge or no
> kludge.

> (1) We either decree once and for all that binary operations ought to
> have commutators, modify CREATE TYPE to issue a warning if you
> create one without, add the missing ones, and add a check for
> that to opr_sanity (possibly excluding some deprecated operators).

> or

> (2) We arrange for commutators of binary operators to be created
> automatically.

> or

> (3) Or we bit the bullet and provide something similar to
> "ANY/ALL op scalar". We do have the liberty to pick whatever syntax we
> feel comfortable with, though, since we're out of SQL standard territory
> anyway.

All three of these are massive overkill. What we need is a general
policy that providing commutators is a good idea. We do not need to try
to make it 100.00% with an enforcement mechanism. As for #2, what's
your plan for automatically selecting a commutator operator name?

(Having said that, I *was* thinking of adding an opr_sanity test ... but
not expecting that we'd get it to find zero rows.)

regards, tom lane