Re: TODO item - tid <> operator

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > This has been saved for the 8.2 release:
> >     http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold
>
> Uh, why do we need this at all?  "NOT (tid = tid)" covers the
> functionality already.

tid should be a fully functional type, at least for = and !=.

> I disagree strongly with renumbering existing hand-assigned OIDs for
> this.  There's too much risk of breakage and no benefit.

Agreed.

> Also, you forgot to add the negator cross-links between the operators.

OK.

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073