| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Marko Kreen <marko(at)l-t(dot)ee>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Precedence of '|' operator (was Re: [patch,rfc] binary operators on integers) |
| Date: | 2000-10-12 19:46:21 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.21.0010122134360.12683-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane writes:
> Even though I think '|' is clearly given a bogus precedence, I doubt
> it's a good idea to change it.
The only builtin '|' operator, besides the not-there-yet bitor, is some
arcane prefix operator for the "tinterval" type, which returns the start
of the interval. This is all long dead so that would perhaps give us a
chance to change this before we add "or" operators. That might weigh more
than the possibility of a few users having highly specialized '|'
operators that rely on this precedence.
The tinterval type has pretty interesting parsing rules, btw.:
peter=# select 'whatever you say'::tinterval;
?column?
-----------------------------------------------------
["1935-12-23 09:42:00+01" "1974-04-16 17:52:52+01"]
(1 row)
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://yi.org/peter-e/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-10-12 20:10:55 | Re: Core dump |
| Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2000-10-12 19:45:45 | Re: possible constraint bug? |