Re: record identical operator

On 09/16/2013 04:01 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Hannu Krosing <hannu@2ndQuadrant.com> wrote:
>
>> Lots of people were bitten when (undocumented) hash
>> functions were changed thus breaking hash-based partitioning.
> Nobody can be affected by the new operators in this patch unless
> they choose to use them to compare two records.  They don't work
> for any other type and they don't come into play unless you
> specifically request them.
>
Maybe the binary equality operator should be named ====
for "really deeply equal"

to distinguish it from === which would be merely NOT DISTINCT FROM

we could even go one step further and define ===== to mean "the same".

?

This could fit better in conceptual sequence of operator 'strength'

-- 
Hannu Krosing
PostgreSQL Consultant
Performance, Scalability and High Availability
2ndQuadrant Nordic OÜ