"Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Hm, I've never seen anyone spell "less than or equal to" as
>> "=<", so I'm not sure where you derive "=<@" from? Not
>> saying "no", but the other seems clearer to me.
> Yes, but to me too =<@ seems more natural since we started with @> and <@.
> Tom, your argument would more match your original @> and @<, but then it
> would imply @>= and @<=, imho.
Well, I'm reading it as "a comparison operator with @ plastered on the
side of the larger object", not a mirror-image thing. But maybe we
should just stick with @> and <@ as per the ltree precedent, and not
worry about leaving room for strict inclusion tests.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(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
