Re: record identical operator
От | Kevin Grittner |
---|---|
Тема | Re: record identical operator |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1379353613.61125.YahooMailNeo@web162905.mail.bf1.yahoo.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: record identical operator (Hannu Krosing <hannu@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: record identical operator
Re: record identical operator |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hannu Krosing <hannu@2ndQuadrant.com> wrote: > What I meant is that rather than leave it really undocumented, > document it as "system function for specific usage, has caveats > and may change in future versions. use at your own risk and > make sure you know what you are doing" Well, that was my original assumption and intention; but when I went to look for where the operators for record *equals* were defined, I found that we had apparently chosen to leave them undocumented. Oddly, under a section titled "Row-wise Comparison" we only document the behavior of comparisons involving what the SQL spec calls <row value constructor>. I asked whether that was intentional, and heard only the chirping of crickets: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1378848776.70700.YahooMailNeo@web162902.mail.bf1.yahoo.com If we choose not to document the equals operator for records, it hardly makes sense to document the identical operator for records. > PostgreSQL has good enough introspection features that people > tend to find functions and operators using psql-s \d ... One would think so, yet I don't recall seeing anyone posting regarding the existing undocumented record comparison operators. Nor do I recall seeing anyone posting about the undocumented pattern comparison operators. -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: