From: | "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alan Gutierrez <alangutierrez(at)hotmail(dot)com>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Re: Re: DateDiff, IsNull? |
Date: | 2001-08-15 15:10:36 |
Message-ID: | web-102637@davinci.ethosmedia.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Alan, Tom, Ross, etc:
> > Well, Alan, overloading operators is sort of important to the user
> > definable types in postgresql. And any cross-type functionality,
> actually.
Hmmm ... I wasn't aware that what SQL does is "operator overloading",
per se.
Instead, I was under the SQL-spec impression that operators were defined
within the context of their relative datatypes, and only within that
context.
For example, currently 730::INT / 7::INT works fine, but '2
years'::INTERVAL / '1 week'::INTERVAL gives me an "operator not defined"
error. This is because nobody has had time to define the operator "/"
in the context of INTERVAL / INTERVAL. When someone does (oh please?
grovel, grovel) it will be defined, not overloaded.
Similarly, the operator "+" has no standard defintion in the context of
VARCHAR + VARCHAR. So how is defining it as a concatination operator
(whatever other problems there might be with that) "overloading"?
Or am I missing the point?
-Josh Berkus
______AGLIO DATABASE SOLUTIONS___________________________
Josh Berkus
Complete information technology josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com
and data management solutions (415) 565-7293
for law firms, small businesses fax 621-2533
and non-profit organizations. San Francisco
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
unknown_filename | text/plain | 2 bytes |
unknown_filename | text/plain | 2 bytes |
unknown_filename | text/plain | 2 bytes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-08-15 15:47:34 | Re: Temp tables being written to disk. Avoidable? |
Previous Message | Jeff Barrett | 2001-08-15 15:08:42 | \set variant for use in regular sql commands |