Peter Geoghegan <pe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On 17 June 2012 17:01, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> The killer reason why it must be like that is that you can't use hash >> methods on text if text equality is some unknown condition subtly >> different from bitwise equality.
> Fair enough, but I doubt that we need to revert the changes made in > this commit to texteq in addition to the changes I'd like to see in > order to be semantically self-consistent. That is because there is > often a distinction made between equality and equivalence, and we > could adopt this distinction. How exactly do you plan to shoehorn that into SQL? You could invent some nonstandard "equivalence" operator I suppose, but what will be the value? We aren't going to set things up in such a way that we can't use hash join or hash aggregation in queries that use the regular "=" operator. IMO there just aren't going to be enough people who care to use a non-default operator. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers