> The new names might be better if we were starting in a green field, > but in themselves they are not any more mnemonic than what we had, and > what we had has been there for a lot of years. Also, if we accept both > old names and new (which it seems like we'd have to), that creates new > opportunities for confusion, which is a cost that should not be > disregarded.
This is true for existing users of those operators. New names are much easier to get by the new users. We are using them on all other datatypes. Datatypes like JSON is more popular than inet. Many people already know what <@ and @> mean. > The original post proposed that we'd eventually get some benefit by > being able to repurpose << and >> to mean something else, but the > time scale over which that could happen is so long as to make it > unlikely to ever happen. I think we will immediately get benefit from the new operators because of other reasons. Repurposing them in far future was a minor point. I though having a long term plan on this minor point is better than having no plan. > I'm inclined to think we should just reject this patch. I'm certainly not > going to commit it without seeing positive votes from multiple people. It is a fair position. Anybody care to vote? -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers