Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> writes:
> On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 14:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Does it behave sanely for operators that are non-commutative, such
>> as '>'? (I'm not even very sure that I know what "sanely" would be
>> in such a case.)
> If you try it, my current patch won't stop you. Maybe I should detect
> the fact that the commutator of an operator is not the operator itself,
> and throw an ERROR? Probably would be a good idea.
+1. Otherwise people *will* try it, and then send us bug reports when
it doesn't behave sanely.
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
