| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Does Type Have = Operator? |
| Date: | 2016-05-12 00:05:48 |
| Message-ID: | F434008C-5404-4974-A2D8-E6601B3333F2@justatheory.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On May 11, 2016, at 10:34 AM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I'm not clear enough on your intended usage to know whether these
> operators are a good fit, but they are sitting there waiting to be
> used if they do fit.
Huh. I haven’t had any problems with IS DISTINCT FROM for rows, except for the situation in which a failure is thrown because the types vary, say between TEXT and CITEXT. That can drive the tester crazy, since it says something like:
Results differ beginning at row 3:
have: (44,Anna)
want: (44,Anna)
But overall I think that’s okay; the tester really does want to make sure the type is correct.
Thanks,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2016-05-12 00:09:20 | Re: Does Type Have = Operator? |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2016-05-11 23:46:47 | Re: parallel.c is not marked as test covered |