"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tuesday, March 18, 2025, 谭忠涛 <zhongtao(dot)tan(at)seaboxdata(dot)com> wrote:
>> select 1 !=-1;
>> select 1 !=+1;
> Explain why you think it is a bug. From what I see those are potentially
> valid operator names that do not exist so “operator not found” is the
> correct outcome.
Our rules for operator names are here:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-syntax-lexical.html#SQL-SYNTAX-OPERATORS
regards, tom lane