Hi, On 2019-10-28 10:41:31 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > I mean, do we have to break the extensions? If we just added == > operators that behaved like IS NOT DISTINCT FROM to each datatype, why > would anything get broken? I mean, if someone out there has a > ==(int4,int4) operator, that would get broken, but what's the evidence > that any such thing exists, or that its semantics are any different > from what we're talking about? > > If we added == as a magic parser shortcut for IS NOT DISTINCT FROM, > that would be more likely to break things, because it would affect > every conceivable data type. I don't think that's a great idea, but
Without some magic, the amount of repetitive changes, the likelihood of inconsistencies, and the reduced information about semantic meaning to the planner (it'd not be a btree op anymore!), all seem to argue against adding such an operator. Greetings, Andres Freund
