Re: Boolean operators without commutators vs. ALL/ANY
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Boolean operators without commutators vs. ALL/ANY |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 17580.1308199817@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Boolean operators without commutators vs. ALL/ANY (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Boolean operators without commutators vs. ALL/ANY
Re: Boolean operators without commutators vs. ALL/ANY |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> On tis, 2011-06-14 at 15:38 +0200, Florian Pflug wrote:
>> BTW, there's actually precedent for a commutator of "~", namely
>> "@". Some of the geometric types (polygon, box, circle, point,
>> path) use "~" as a commutator for "@" (which stands for "contains").
> I wouldn't have a problem with naming the reverse operator "@".
We deprecated those names for the geometric operators largely because
there wasn't any visual correlation between the commutator pairs.
I can't see introducing the same pairing for regex operators if we
already decided the geometric case was a bad idea.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: