On Jun 17, 2012 5:50 PM, "Tom Lane" <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Peter Geoghegan <pe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > On 17 June 2012 17:01, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 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.

Right, most people won't care. You may or may not want a new
Operator for equivalency. The regular operator for equality doesn't have to
and shouldn't change. It is both useful and conceptually clean to not
guarantee that a compator can be relied upon to indicate equality and not
just equivalency.

Reply via email to