On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Michael Nolan <htf...@gmail.com> writes: > > It seems like we're being inconsistent here in allowing 'where xid = > > integer' but not allowing 'where xid != integer'. > > Well, if you look into pg_operator you'll soon find that there are > exactly two built-in operators that accept type xid: "=(xid,xid)" and > "=(xid,integer)" (where I'd say the latter is just a kluge). > There hasn't previously been any demand to flesh it out more than that. > Do you have an actual use-case where <> would be helpful, or is this > just experimentation? > I'm not sure yet. I was doing some thinking about ways to do incremental backups (at least for inserted/updated rows, deleted rows present a different challenge), and was just doing some simple queries to see what worked and what didn't.. It also appears you cannot group on a column of type xid. Would adding a <> operator enable that? -- Mike Nolan
