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
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
