Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
| От | David G. Johnston |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAKFQuwaF1gAwr890ph0W6hj9cJOENo9Fqw8EO8QT6EQYq7E9ZQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 4:17 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 4:04 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Especially not for unary operators, where
>> ALTER OPERATOR would have us write "- (NONE, integer)".
> I'd drop the parens for unary and just write "- integer"
We do have some postfix operators still ... although it looks like
there's only one in core. In any case, the signature line is *the*
thing that is supposed to specify what the syntax is, so I'm not
too pleased with using an ambiguous notation for it.
Neither:
- (NONE, integer)
nor
! (integer, NONE)
seem bad, and do make very obvious how they are different.
The left margin scanning ability for the symbol (hey, I have an expression here that uses @>, what does that do?) seems worth the bit of novelty required.
David J.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: