On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgri...@ymail.com> wrote: > Hannu Krosing <ha...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >> What I meant is that rather than leave it really undocumented, >> document it as "system function for specific usage, has caveats >> and may change in future versions. use at your own risk and >> make sure you know what you are doing" > > Well, that was my original assumption and intention; but when I > went to look for where the operators for record *equals* were > defined, I found that we had apparently chosen to leave them > undocumented. Oddly, under a section titled "Row-wise Comparison" > we only document the behavior of comparisons involving what the SQL > spec calls <row value constructor>. I asked whether that was > intentional, and heard only the chirping of crickets: > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1378848776.70700.yahoomail...@web162902.mail.bf1.yahoo.com > > If we choose not to document the equals operator for records, it > hardly makes sense to document the identical operator for records. > >> PostgreSQL has good enough introspection features that people >> tend to find functions and operators using psql-s \d ... > > One would think so, yet I don't recall seeing anyone posting > regarding the existing undocumented record comparison operators. > Nor do I recall seeing anyone posting about the undocumented > pattern comparison operators.
This behavior came about via a gripe of mine (but mostly courtesy Tom Lane_: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6EE64EF3AB31D5448D0007DD34EEB34101AEF5@Herge.rcsinc.local It brought row-wise comparon closer- (if not exactly to-) SQL spec. The underlying use-case is to do ISAM-like record iteration over the index. "index" being the operative word. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
