From: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us |
Cc: | pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us, chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Fixing row comparison semantics |
Date: | 2005-12-26 19:51:29 |
Message-ID: | BAY20-F8D907221DC981584E2FA7F9340@phx.gbl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
>Huh? The only "current behavior" with other operators is failure:
you didn't understand me. I know so operator <* isn't supported now.
I prefere SQL spec behave too. But what I wont:
a <* b ~ ai <= bi and one ai < bi => true ; if one ai > bi => NULL; else
false
but this behave is from some views really chaotic. This comparation is used
in operation research, but propably is far to ideas ANSI SQL. It was only
idea.
>
>regression=# select (1,1) <* (1,2);
>ERROR: operator <* is not supported for row expressions
>
>In any case, you can get the equivalent of the current behavior by
>writing out
> 1 <* 1 AND 1 <* 2
>so I don't see any strong need to support non-SQL-spec behaviors here.
>
> regards, tom lane
_________________________________________________________________
Najdete si svou lasku a nove pratele na Match.com. http://www.msn.cz/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gregory Maxwell | 2005-12-26 20:12:48 | Fixing row comparison semantics |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2005-12-26 19:46:44 | Re: [HACKERS] Online backup vs Continuous backup |