| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Eugen Konkov <kes-kes(at)yandex(dot)ru>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposition to use '==' as synonym for 'IS NOT DISTINCT FROM' |
| Date: | 2019-10-28 13:31:59 |
| Message-ID: | 76d333dc-7857-83e7-a97d-5910f93453be@2ndQuadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/28/19 8:37 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 7:54 AM Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Postgres already allows != as a synonym for <>. I think having =! mean something subtly but significantly different is a terrible idea. At a minimum we would have to remove the synonym, which would be a backwards compatibility break.
> I certainly agree with that. I do think, though, that IS DISTINCT FROM
> is a terribly verbose thing to have to write all the time. It's not
> that bad when you write a query that contains one instance of it, but
> I've both seen and written queries where you need to use it a bunch of
> times, and that can get really annoying.
How about instead of new operators we just provide a nice shorthand way
of saying these? e.g. ARE and AINT :-)
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2019-10-28 13:36:15 | Re: pgbench - extend initialization phase control |
| Previous Message | Diggory Blake | 2019-10-28 13:08:15 | Re: Proposition to use '==' as synonym for 'IS NOT DISTINCT FROM' |