Re: AW: [HACKERS] Getting OID in psql of recent insert

From: Peter Eisentraut <e99re41(at)DoCS(dot)UU(dot)SE>
To: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "'PostgreSQL-development'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: AW: [HACKERS] Getting OID in psql of recent insert
Date: 1999-11-29 11:58:22
Message-ID: Pine.GSO.4.02A.9911291251350.19842-100000@Radha.DoCS.UU.SE
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, Thomas Lockhart wrote:

> > I'd not object if we removed these operators and instead provided
> > functions with the standard names log() and exp() for all the
> > non-integral numeric types. Comments?
>
> I have no great fondness for ";" and ":" as operators, but would like
> to see some operators assigned to these functions. Certainly the carat
> "^" could work for exp() (or maybe "**" to make those old Fortran
> programmers feel better about themselves ;), and perhaps "!^" for
> log()? Any other ideas for appropriate symbols for these operators??

I wasn't aware of any Obfuscated SQL Contest ...

I personally think that the greatest possible benefit can only be derived
if all of this looks as much as possible like actual mathematical writing.
Thus I could agree with a power operator '^' and perhaps even a unary '^'
exponential operator, although that's already questionable. But by
inventing non-standard operators for every function under the sun, just to
have one, you're not doing anyone (including yourself) a favour.

That's just me though. As you said yourself, good ideas will stand the
test of an extended discussion ;)

--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders vaeg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jan Wieck 1999-11-29 13:11:12 Re: [HACKERS] Referential Integrety
Previous Message S S Mani 1999-11-29 09:41:58 Pro*C conversion