Re: citext operator precedence fix

Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>> I think you'll find that's easier said than done (problem 1 is going to
>> be ambiguity,

> Ambiguity?

Yeah, I'm worried about the possibility of parser failing to resolve
which operator is meant.

>> and problem 2 is going to be that comparisons involving
>> these operators won't get indexed).

> Yeah, that's acceptable, since it's not any worse than the behavior of
> the comparisons now.

No, I don't think so. For people for whom the right thing is happening,
you'll risk making it (a) wrong and (b) lots slower. For people for
whom the wrong thing is happening, maybe you'll fix it so it's
semantically right, but if indexes don't work they still won't be happy.

regards, tom lane