On Jun13, 2011, at 05:44 , Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Florian Pflug <f...@phlo.org> wrote: >>> (B) There should be a way to use ANY()/ALL() with the >>> array elements becoming the left arguments of the operator. > >> It seems to me that if we provided some way of handling this, your >> first proposal would be moot; and I have to say I like the idea of >> allowing this a lot more than tinkering with the operator names. > > There are syntactic reasons not to do that. It'd be a lot easier just > to provide a commutator operator for ~.
My suggestion would be the add a commutator for "~" as a short-term solution (preferably in 9.1). Since "~" doesn't inspire any obvious names for a possible commutator, I suggest adding "=~" and "~=". Is there any support for that proposal? In the long term, I'd like to add support for "(ANY() <op> <expr>)" (Note the enclosing parens). I've checked that this works grammar-wise, but haven't no idea how much tweaking the executor needs to support that... 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
