| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, premanand <kottiprem(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: MySQL search query is not executing in Postgres DB |
| Date: | 2012-02-17 15:27:35 |
| Message-ID: | 26301.1329492455@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I understand why it's a bad idea to rely on integer = text doing
> anything sane - is that text equality or numeric equality?
> And in theory the same issue could exist here if there were another
> meaning for LIKE. But there isn't.
Really? LIKE is just a different spelling for operator ~~, and there is
nothing stopping people from defining more operators named that, not to
mention that there are already four of them in core PG. In particular
the bytea ~~ bytea version is explicitly intended to provide a LIKE
implementation for non-text types. I see some operators named ~~ in
contrib as well.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2012-02-17 15:36:58 | Re: Scaling XLog insertion (was Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-02-17 15:19:43 | Re: Notes about fixing regexes and UTF-8 (yet again) |