| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2020-04-17 23:08:19 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwZhr5-dpRVWhHqxHVDEsenYoNuFuCKN66mvRxdykBzLGA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 4:04 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Especially not for unary operators, where
> ALTER OPERATOR would have us write "- (NONE, integer)".
>
I'd drop the parens for unary and just write "- integer"
It is a bit geeky but then again SQL writers are not typically computer
language novices so operators should be comfortable for them and this isn't
that off-the-wall. But I agree with the concern.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-04-17 23:16:59 | Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-04-17 23:04:51 | Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign? |