Re: operator dependency of commutator and negator, redux

Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On 20 December 2012 11:51, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> While reconsidering the various not-too-satisfactory fixes we thought of
>> back then, I had a sudden thought. Instead of having a COMMUTATOR or
>> NEGATOR forward reference create a "shell" operator and link to it,
>> why not simply *ignore* such references? Then when the second operator
>> is defined, go ahead and fill in both links?

> Ignore with warning sounds pretty good. So it would go something like this?

> # CREATE OPERATOR < (... COMMUTATOR >);
> WARNING: COMMUTATOR > (foo, foo) undefined, ignoring.
> CREATE OPERATOR

> # CREATE OPERATOR > (... COMMUTATOR <);
> CREATE OPERATOR

I was thinking a NOTICE at most. If it's a WARNING then restoring
perfectly valid pg_dump files will result in lots of scary-looking
chatter. You could make an argument for printing nothing at all,
but that would probably mislead people who'd fat-fingered their
COMMUTATOR entries.

regards, tom lane