On 05/19/2015 02:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Mike Blackwell <mike.blackw...@rrd.com> writes:
See for example
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B19306_01/text.102/b14218/cqoper.htm#i997330,
Table 3-1, third row, showing the precedence of '?'. Further down the
page, under "Fuzzy" see "Backward Compatibility Syntax".
If I'm reading that right, that isn't a SQL-level operator but an operator
in their text search query language, which would only appear in SQL
queries within string literals (compare tsquery's query operators in PG).
So it wouldn't be a hazard for ?-substitution, as long as the substituter
was bright enough to not change string literals.
Yeah. What would be nice would be to have a functional notation
corresponding to the operators, so you would be able to write
something."?>"(a,b)
and it would mean exactly the same thing, including indexability, as
a ?> b
I presume that wouldn't give the drivers a headache.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
