"Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2008/12/9 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> If you could prove that it were *only* being used by this contrib module
>> then I might hold still for replacing it. But you can't. The odds are
>> good that people have custom data types using similarly-named operators.
> it means, so we must not implement any new operator?
No, it doesn't mean any such thing. If we invented, say, "int4 => int4"
it would not break someone's use of => for their own custom datatype.
What you're proposing would be a global redefinition of the meaning of =>.
This is closer to creating a new reserved word, which as I'm sure you
know we try hard to avoid, even for keywords that the spec says we can
reserve. The bar for making a new fully-reserved word that isn't in
the spec is *very* high.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
