| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im>, Postgres Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Named Operators |
| Date: | 2023-01-12 15:21:36 |
| Message-ID: | 954547.1673536896@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I'm -1 on the chosen syntax; :name: shadows common variable
> substitution patterns including those of psql.
Yeah, this syntax is DOA because of that. I think almost
anything you might invent is going to have conflict risks.
We could probably make it work by allowing the existing OPERATOR
syntax to take things that look like names as well as operators,
like
expr3 OPERATOR(contains_all) expr4
But that's bulky enough that nobody will care to use it.
On the whole I don't see this proposal going anywhere.
There's too much investment in the existing operator names,
and too much risk of conflicts if you try to shorten the
syntax.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2023-01-12 15:21:57 | Re: Named Operators |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2023-01-12 15:21:32 | Re: allowing for control over SET ROLE |