| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-06-17 20:39:32 | Re: hstore ==> and deprecate => |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2010-06-17 19:43:58 | Re: ANNOUNCE list (was Re: New PGXN Extension site) |