Re: hstore ==> and deprecate =>

On Jun 17, 2010, at 2:56 , David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2010, at 4:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>>> hstore => text[] is new in 9.0.
>>
>> Wup, sorry, I read this as being the other operator.  Nevermind ...
>>
>> (FWIW, I share your dislike of & for this operator.  I just haven't
>> got a better idea.)
>
> There aren't any very good choices.

Since there seems to be no consensus on this, maybe thats a sign that there shouldn't be an operator for this at all. I
suggested& due due the similarities to ?&, but I can see why people object to that - mainly because it looks like an
predicate,not like an operation on hstores. 

How about turning it into a function   hstore hstore(hstore, text[])
instead?

Could also be hstore_restrict if people think naming it just hstore is ambiguous.

best regards,
Florian Pflug