Tom Lane wrote: > Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Can someone explain to me how: > > (a, b) < (1, 2) > > is different to > > a < 1 and b < 2 > > Right at the moment our code interprets it that way, but this behavior > is wrong per spec. It should be an ordered column-by-column comparison, > so that the equivalent simple expression is > > (a < 1) OR (a = 1 AND b < 2)
TODO updated: * %Make row-wise comparisons work per SQL spec Right now, '(a, b) < (1, 2)' is processed as 'a < 1 and b < 2', but the SQL standard requires it to be processed as a column-by-column comparison, so the proper comparison is '(a < 1) OR (a = 1 AND b < 2)' -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match