From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [NOT] (LIKE|ILIKE) (ANY|ALL) (...) |
Date: | 2004-03-26 14:51:57 |
Message-ID: | 23575.1080312717@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> writes:
>> This seems to allow a whole lot of unintended and probably uncool things
>> as well. "ORDER BY NOT LIKE", for instance.
> Well, it seemed to me (maybe I'm wrong here/) that "ORDER BY !~~" was
> allowed anyway by the parser, so I cannot see why it should not allow "NOT
> LIKE" as well, even if it does not make sense.
Possibly. The case that I thought was a real bad idea was actually the
one in def_arg --- we don't want that doing any behind-the-scenes
translation of words to other things. The ORDER BY case is just silly.
> Or the rule factorization must be changed. It can also be done.
Yes. I think we must have an all_subselect_ops or similar.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2004-03-26 16:00:53 | Re: [NOT] (LIKE|ILIKE) (ANY|ALL) (...) |
Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2004-03-26 07:05:01 | Re: [NOT] (LIKE|ILIKE) (ANY|ALL) (...) |