| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: factorial function/phase out postfix operators? |
| Date: | 2020-05-19 14:39:48 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ5o7GAgKOTeqJoU_VB5xJgAAwrDrWHLjAmYrg0F=oKZQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 10:36 AM Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> wrote:
> So if I make a complex UDT where a NOT operator makes a lot of sense[*],
> why wouldn't I be allowed to make a prefix operator ! for it? All for
> what? That one person in the corner over there who doesn't want to
> rewrite their query to use factorial() instead?
>
> I'm -1 on keeping ! around as a hard-coded postfix operator.
Fair enough. I think you may be in the majority on that one, too. I
just wanted to raise the issue, and we'll see if anyone else agrees.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jack Christensen | 2020-05-19 14:40:19 | Re: Performance penalty when requesting text values in binary format |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2020-05-19 14:38:52 | Re: pg_stat_wal_receiver and flushedUpto/writtenUpto |