| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Matteo Beccati <php(at)beccati(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 10:05:34 |
| Message-ID: | 87wt8khrpt.fsf@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Matteo Beccati <php(at)beccati(dot)com> writes:
> 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).
If you consider ltree entries to be sets containing all their children then
those sound consistent.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Bernier | 2006-09-04 10:22:35 | Re: On Certification (was Re: [GENERAL] Thought provoking piece on NetBSD) |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-09-04 09:41:25 | Re: Optimizing prepared statements |