Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> writes:
> So my opinion is that this small modulo operator patch is both useful and
> harmless, so it should be committed.
You've really failed to make that case --- in particular, AFAICS there is
not even consensus on the exact semantics that the operator should have.
So I'm inclined to reject rather than put in something that may cause
surprises down the road. The usefulness doesn't seem great enough to
take that risk.
The way forward, if we think there is enough value in it (I'm not
sure there is), would be to build enough expression infrastructure
so that we could inexpensively add both operators and functions.
Then we could add a modulo operator with whatever semantics seem
most popular, and some function(s) for the other semantics, and
there would not be so much riding on choosing the "right" semantics.
regards, tom lane