| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Steven Pousty <steve(dot)pousty(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pierre Giraud <pierre(dot)giraud(at)dalibo(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign? |
| Date: | 2020-04-18 12:27:12 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZrYwfh4bU+OyhvdvHADBay6CcsseA74vtj8gO_mKOmNQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 6:30 PM David G. Johnston
<david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I feel like writing them as:
>
> + (date, integer) -> date
>
> makes more sense as they are mainly sorted on the operator symbol as opposed to the left operand.
I thought about that, too, but I think the way Tom did it is better.
It's much more natural to see it using the syntax with which it will
actually be invoked.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2020-04-18 12:34:26 | Re: snapshot too old issues, first around wraparound and then more. |
| Previous Message | Eugen Konkov | 2020-04-18 11:46:55 | Implementation DISTINCT for window aggregate function: SUM |