* Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > I think this really needs to have an obscure name. Like ==!!== or > somesuch (is equal very much, but doesn't actually test for equality ;))
hah. > > What the heck is the use case for this being a user-oriented, SQL > > operator..? > > The materalized view code uses generated SQL, so it has to be SQL > accessible. And it needs to be an operator because the join planning > code requires that :( Ugh. This feels like a pretty ugly hack to deal with that. I haven't got any magical wand to address it, but making an SQL operator for 'are these really the same bytes' to deal with what is essentially implementation detail is _very_ grotty. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature