Florian Pflug <f...@phlo.org> writes:
> Well, I think there are basically three choices here, kludge or no
> kludge.
> (1) We either decree once and for all that binary operations ought to
> have commutators, modify CREATE TYPE to issue a warning if you
> create one without, add the missing ones, and add a check for
> that to opr_sanity (possibly excluding some deprecated operators).
> or
> (2) We arrange for commutators of binary operators to be created
> automatically.
> or
> (3) Or we bit the bullet and provide something similar to
> "ANY/ALL op scalar". We do have the liberty to pick whatever syntax we
> feel comfortable with, though, since we're out of SQL standard territory
> anyway.
All three of these are massive overkill. What we need is a general
policy that providing commutators is a good idea. We do not need to try
to make it 100.00% with an enforcement mechanism. As for #2, what's
your plan for automatically selecting a commutator operator name?
(Having said that, I *was* thinking of adding an opr_sanity test ... but
not expecting that we'd get it to find zero rows.)
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
