| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joshua Ma <josh(at)benchling(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 9.5 "chained equality" behavior |
| Date: | 2017-05-30 21:39:40 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwai_koXpB_GhTFCTw=YiAHDg9peXOKs7ijT7-N2sVBSbA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 2:32 PM, David G. Johnston <
david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> ...
> namely because aside from equality all of the comparison operators
> convert their inputs to a boolean and so cannot be placed in sequence like
> shown here (boolean compared to, say, integer doesn't work). Boolean
> equality is the one exception which is what no longer works - so the docs
> are correct.
>
>
Yes, that was poorly written...booleans keep the same type and so can be
"chained" while other types do not. But precedence is not based upon type,
just the operator.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ludovic Vaugeois-Pepin | 2017-05-30 22:16:37 | Fwd: pg_basebackup error: replication slot "pg_basebackup_2194" already exists |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2017-05-30 21:32:20 | Re: 9.5 "chained equality" behavior |