On Jun 15, 2010, at 3:13 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Andrew Gierth > <and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk> wrote: >> I'm happy with deprecating the first two => in favour of hstore() if >> that is in line with general opinion. The hstore => text[] slice could >> be replaced by another operator name; the existing name comes from the >> analogy that (hstore -> text[]) returns the list of values, whereas >> (hstore => text[]) returns both the keys and values. > > So, I kind of like Florian Pflug's suggestion upthread of replacing > hstore => text by hstore & text[]. I think that's about as mnemonic > as we're likely to get, and it gels nicely with the hstore ?& text[] > operator, which tests whether all of the named keys are present in the > hstore. > > Does anyone want to bikeshed further before I go do that?
Yeah. It actually doesn't make much sense to me. ?& is all about the keys and their presence, not the values. -> is a much better parallel, it being that it returns the keys in the rhs array. So I think something closer to it would be better. Some suggestions: ~> <- #> +> Ooh, I like +>, as being: give me more than -> does. Best, David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
