2008/12/9 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > "Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> 2008/12/9 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> ... and it breaks an operator that's already in use. > >> what is acceptable workaround? I unhappy, so this symbol was used for >> this minor contrib module (for this operator doesn't exists regress >> test). > > If you could prove that it were *only* being used by this contrib module > then I might hold still for replacing it. But you can't. The odds are > good that people have custom data types using similarly-named operators.
it means, so we must not implement any new operator? regards Pavel Stehule > > regards, tom lane > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers