24.12.2019 19:08, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
@@ -106,6 +106,18 @@ CREATE OPERATOR CLASS <replaceable
class="parameter">name</replaceable> [ DEFAUL
</listitem>
</varlistentry>
+ <varlistentry>
+ <term><literal>NOT BITWISE</literal></term>
+ <listitem>
+ <para>
+ If present, the operator class equality is not the same as equivalence.
+ For example, two numerics can compare equal but have different scales.
+ Most opclasses implement bitwise equal comparison, alternative behaviour
+ must be set explicitly.
+ </para>
+ </listitem>
+ </varlistentry>
Am I the only one bothered by the fact that this patch (and all
downstream discussion) reduces the term "bitwise equality" to simply
"bitwise"? It reads really strange to me, both in the resulting SQL
grammar as well as in struct names, code comments etc. "This operator
class is bitwise."
Thank you for pointing that out.
Do you have any suggestions on how to name it better?
Should it rather be "CREATE OPERATOR CLASS ... BITWISE EQUAL" ?
In the recent version of the patch I also had a question,
if it will be useful to do this option enum instead of boolean:
We can make this 'opcisbitwise' parameter enum (or char) instead of
boolean to mark
"always bitwise", "never bitwise" and "maybe bitwise".
This decision will also affect the syntax. So I'd rather agree on that
before updating syntax.
Do you have an opinion on that?
--
Anastasia Lubennikova
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
