From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: record identical operator |
Date: | 2013-09-16 17:46:53 |
Message-ID: | 1379353613.61125.YahooMailNeo@web162905.mail.bf1.yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> What I meant is that rather than leave it really undocumented,
> document it as "system function for specific usage, has caveats
> and may change in future versions. use at your own risk and
> make sure you know what you are doing"
Well, that was my original assumption and intention; but when I
went to look for where the operators for record *equals* were
defined, I found that we had apparently chosen to leave them
undocumented. Oddly, under a section titled "Row-wise Comparison"
we only document the behavior of comparisons involving what the SQL
spec calls <row value constructor>. I asked whether that was
intentional, and heard only the chirping of crickets:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1378848776.70700.YahooMailNeo@web162902.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
If we choose not to document the equals operator for records, it
hardly makes sense to document the identical operator for records.
> PostgreSQL has good enough introspection features that people
> tend to find functions and operators using psql-s \d ...
One would think so, yet I don't recall seeing anyone posting
regarding the existing undocumented record comparison operators.
Nor do I recall seeing anyone posting about the undocumented
pattern comparison operators.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-09-16 17:49:01 | Re: record identical operator |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-09-16 17:32:16 | Re: \h open |