Re: Fixing row comparison semantics

From: "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)hotmail(dot)com>
To: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us
Cc: pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us, chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Fixing row comparison semantics
Date: 2005-12-26 19:51:29
Message-ID: BAY20-F8D907221DC981584E2FA7F9340@phx.gbl
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>
>Huh? The only "current behavior" with other operators is failure:

you didn't understand me. I know so operator <* isn't supported now.
I prefere SQL spec behave too. But what I wont:

a <* b ~ ai <= bi and one ai < bi => true ; if one ai > bi => NULL; else
false

but this behave is from some views really chaotic. This comparation is used
in operation research, but propably is far to ideas ANSI SQL. It was only
idea.

>
>regression=# select (1,1) <* (1,2);
>ERROR: operator <* is not supported for row expressions
>
>In any case, you can get the equivalent of the current behavior by
>writing out
> 1 <* 1 AND 1 <* 2
>so I don't see any strong need to support non-SQL-spec behaviors here.
>
> regards, tom lane

_________________________________________________________________
Najdete si svou lasku a nove pratele na Match.com. http://www.msn.cz/

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gregory Maxwell 2005-12-26 20:12:48 Fixing row comparison semantics
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2005-12-26 19:46:44 Re: [HACKERS] Online backup vs Continuous backup