Dear hackers,
Would it hurt anybody if operator == is made a synonym for operator =?
as != is a synonum for <>, it would make sense.
If it does not hurt, should it be implemented by replicating pg_operator
entries, or would a backend modification be ok? Operator != is NOT in
pg_operator, so it must be dealt with in the backend. I would prefer
a backend solution, so that == is also always =.
--
Fabien Coelho - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
