| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Warts with SELECT DISTINCT |
| Date: | 2006-05-04 16:47:09 |
| Message-ID: | 871wv920vm.fsf@stark.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> writes:
> Thanks for pointing that out. I should have realized that this was the same
> (or at least close to) issue I was thinking would be a problem initially, but
> then I started thinking that '=' promised more than it did and assumed that
> x = y implies foo(x) = foo(y), which as you point out isn't always true.
Hm. This goes back to the earlier conversation about whether = should ever be
true for two objects that aren't, well, equal. I thought there was some
consensus at the time that sorting should impose a superficial ordering on
items that compare equal but aren't in fact the same.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-05-04 16:47:39 | Re: Semi-undocumented functions in libpq |
| Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2006-05-04 16:37:48 | Re: autovacuum logging, part deux. |