On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> On 6/17/10 1:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> Since there are no other votes for that option (or, indeed, any other
>>>> option), I'm going to go with my original instinct and change hstore
>>>> => text to hstore & text. Patch to do that is attached.
>>> If what that operator is doing is appending an array of text to an
>>> Hstore, shouldn't we use || instead?
>> It isn't. || already does what you're saying.
> So what *does* it do?
> OK, so after a brief poll on IRC, one reason you're not getting coherent
> feedback on this is that few people understand the operators which
> hstore 9.0 already uses and which are new for 9.0, let alone what new
> operators are proposed for each thing. I know I've completely lost
> track, particularly since doc patches haven't kept up with the code
> changes. I've reread most of this thread and it doesn't help me.
> On the other hand, maybe less feedback is less bikeshedding. You decide.
Well, they are documented, so you can read up on them...
This isn't a critical issue in desperate need of community input; we
just need to resolve it one way or the other so we can move on to the
next thing. I'm still inclined to go ahead and apply the patch I
attached upthread, because that is less work for me than doing
The Enterprise Postgres Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2010-06-17 22:22:00|
|Subject: Why aren't master and slave DBs binary identical?|
|Previous:||From: David E. Wheeler||Date: 2010-06-17 21:03:32|
|Subject: Re: hstore ==> and deprecate =>|