From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im>, Postgres Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Named Operators |
Date: | 2023-02-08 16:58:59 |
Message-ID: | 3497966.1675875539@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> This approach does have a couple of shortcomings:
> * You still have to invent an operator name, even if you never
> plan to use it in queries. This is just cosmetic though.
> It's not going to matter if the operator name is long or looks like
> line noise, if you only need to use it a few times in setup DDL.
Oh, one other thought is that we could address that complaint
by allowing OPERATOR(identifier), so that your DDL could use
a meaningful name for the operator. I see that we don't
actually support OPERATOR() right now in CREATE OPERATOR or
ALTER OPERATOR:
regression=# create operator operator(+) (function = foo);
ERROR: syntax error at or near "("
LINE 1: create operator operator(+) (function = foo);
^
but I doubt that'd be hard to fix.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2023-02-08 17:00:00 | Re: when the startup process doesn't (logging startup delays) |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-02-08 16:27:13 | Re: recovery modules |