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

Re: hstore ==> and deprecate =>

From: Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>
To: David E(dot) Wheeler <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: hstore ==> and deprecate =>
Date: 2010-06-17 20:30:24
Message-ID: EA49EF06-4E3F-449A-B0E4-1B95D6BE6CD5@phlo.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Jun 17, 2010, at 2:56 , David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2010, at 4:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 
>>> hstore => text[] is new in 9.0.
>> 
>> Wup, sorry, I read this as being the other operator.  Nevermind ...
>> 
>> (FWIW, I share your dislike of & for this operator.  I just haven't
>> got a better idea.)
> 
> There aren't any very good choices.

Since there seems to be no consensus on this, maybe thats a sign that there shouldn't be an operator for this at all. I suggested & due due the similarities to ?&, but I can see why people object to that - mainly because it looks like an predicate, not like an operation on hstores.

How about turning it into a function
    hstore hstore(hstore, text[])
instead?

Could also be hstore_restrict if people think naming it just hstore is ambiguous.

best regards,
Florian Pflug


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2010-06-17 20:39:32
Subject: Re: hstore ==> and deprecate =>
Previous:From: Greg SmithDate: 2010-06-17 19:43:58
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE list (was Re: New PGXN Extension site)

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