Re: TODO item - tid <> operator

From: Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: TODO item - tid <> operator
Date: 2005-10-26 04:09:28
Message-ID: 435F0178.3000501@paradise.net.nz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>>Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>>
>>>This has been saved for the 8.2 release:
>>> http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold
>>
>>Uh, why do we need this at all? "NOT (tid = tid)" covers the
>>functionality already.
>
>
> tid should be a fully functional type, at least for = and !=.
>
>
>>I disagree strongly with renumbering existing hand-assigned OIDs for
>>this. There's too much risk of breakage and no benefit.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>>Also, you forgot to add the negator cross-links between the operators.
>
>
> OK.
>

I'll redo the patch taking these points into account.

Cheers

Mark

In response to

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2005-10-26 05:45:49 PQescapeIdentifier
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2005-10-26 00:03:16 Re: [HACKERS] expanded \df+ display broken in beta4