On 09/18/2013 05:53 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2013-09-18 11:50:23 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: >> For my 2c on this, while this can be useful for *us*, and maybe folks >> hacking pretty close to PG, I can't get behind introducing this as an >> '===' or some such operator. I've missed why this can't be a simple >> function and why in the world we would want to encourage users to use >> this by making it look like a normal language construct of SQL, which >> damn well better consider numbers which are equal in value to be equal, >> regardless of their representation. > I certainly understand the feeling... > > I think this really needs to have an obscure name. Like ==!!== or > somesuch (is equal very much, but doesn't actually test for equality ;)) In PostgreSQL equality can be "anything" :)
In other words, we have "pluggable equality", so it is entirely feasible to have an opclass where binary equality is *the* equality the problem started with some "opclass equality" (case insensitive comparison) missing user-visible changes. Cheers -- Hannu Krosing PostgreSQL Consultant Performance, Scalability and High Availability 2ndQuadrant Nordic OÜ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers