| From: | Matteo Beccati <php(at)beccati(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: @ versus ~, redux |
| Date: | 2006-09-04 07:53:19 |
| Message-ID: | 44FBDB6F.90206@beccati.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane ha scritto:
> OK, so if everyone is leaning to #3, the name game remains to be played.
> Do we all agree on this:
>
> "x @> y" means "x contains y"
> "x @< y" means "x is contained in y"
>
> Are we all prepared to sign a solemn oath to commit hara-kiri if we
> invent a new datatype that gets this wrong? No? Maybe these still
> aren't obvious enough.
Does this mean that also contrib/ltree operators will likely change for
consistency?
ltree @> ltree
- returns TRUE if left argument is an ancestor of right argument
(or equal).
ltree <@ ltree
- returns TRUE if left argument is a descendant of right argument
(or equal).
Best regards
--
Matteo Beccati
http://phpadsnew.com
http://phppgads.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew - Supernews | 2006-09-04 07:54:11 | Re: @ versus ~, redux |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2006-09-04 07:40:24 | Re: gBorg status? |