On Jun 17, 2012 5:50 PM, "Tom Lane" <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Peter Geoghegan <pe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On 17 June 2012 17:01, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > How exactly do you plan to shoehorn that into SQL? You could invent > some nonstandard "equivalence" operator I suppose, but what will be the > value? We aren't going to set things up in such a way that we can't > use hash join or hash aggregation in queries that use the regular "=" > operator.
Right, most people won't care. You may or may not want a new Operator for equivalency. The regular operator for equality doesn't have to and shouldn't change. It is both useful and conceptually clean to not guarantee that a compator can be relied upon to indicate equality and not just equivalency.
