Re: record identical operator
От | Kevin Grittner |
---|---|
Тема | Re: record identical operator |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1379525944.23353.YahooMailNeo@web162904.mail.bf1.yahoo.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: record identical operator (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: record identical operator
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote: > If it's not actually *changing* (wrt its value), then I'm not at > all impressed with the notion that it's going to get updated > anyway. But PostgreSQL very specifically (and as far as I can tell *intentionally*) allows you to *change* a value and have it still be considered *equal*. The concept of equal values really means more like "equivalent" or "close enough" for common purposes. It very specifically does *not* mean the same value. As just one example, think how much easier the citext type would be to implement if it folded all values to lower case as they were input, rather than preserving the data as entered and considering different capitalizations as "equal". The notion that in PostgreSQL a value has not changed if the new value is equal to the old is just flat out wrong. -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: