On 2013-09-18 11:50:23 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > For my 2c on this, while this can be useful for *us*, and maybe folks > hacking pretty close to PG, I can't get behind introducing this as an > '===' or some such operator. I've missed why this can't be a simple > function and why in the world we would want to encourage users to use > this by making it look like a normal language construct of SQL, which > damn well better consider numbers which are equal in value to be equal, > regardless of their representation.
I certainly understand the feeling... I think this really needs to have an obscure name. Like ==!!== or somesuch (is equal very much, but doesn't actually test for equality ;)) > What the heck is the use case for this being a user-oriented, SQL > operator..? The materalized view code uses generated SQL, so it has to be SQL accessible. And it needs to be an operator because the join planning code requires that :( Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
