Re: citext operator precedence fix
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: citext operator precedence fix |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5378.1316652178@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: citext operator precedence fix (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: citext operator precedence fix
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: >> I think you'll find that's easier said than done (problem 1 is going to >> be ambiguity, > Ambiguity? Yeah, I'm worried about the possibility of parser failing to resolve which operator is meant. >> and problem 2 is going to be that comparisons involving >> these operators won't get indexed). > Yeah, that's acceptable, since it's not any worse than the behavior of > the comparisons now. No, I don't think so. For people for whom the right thing is happening, you'll risk making it (a) wrong and (b) lots slower. For people for whom the wrong thing is happening, maybe you'll fix it so it's semantically right, but if indexes don't work they still won't be happy. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: