| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [WIP] Support for "ANY/ALL(array) op scalar" (Was: Re: Boolean operators without commutators vs. ALL/ANY) |
| Date: | 2011-06-16 02:19:47 |
| Message-ID: | 13592.1308190787@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> writes:
> Comments are extremely welcome, especially ones regarding
> the overall approach taken in this patch. If people consider
> that to be acceptable, I'd try to add the missing features
> and add documentation.
Quite honestly, I don't like this one bit and would rather you not
pursue the idea. There is no such syntax in the standard, and
presumably that's not because the SQL committee never thought of it.
They may have some incompatible idea in mind for the future, who knows?
But in any case, this won't provide any functionality whatever that we
couldn't provide at much less effort and risk, just by providing
commutator operators for the few missing cases.
(FWIW, I've come around to liking the idea of using =~ and the obvious
variants of that for regex operators, mainly because of the Perl
precedent.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-06-16 02:56:43 | Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users |
| Previous Message | Florian Pflug | 2011-06-16 01:55:47 | [WIP] Support for "ANY/ALL(array) op scalar" (Was: Re: Boolean operators without commutators vs. ALL/ANY) |