Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote: >>> This decision is both illogical and arbitrary.
>> I disagree. I think his decision was probably based on this email from me: > (argh, sent too soon) > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ca+tgmoa0zp4a+s+kosav4qfdz-wa56vlph8me86rmpsnkvw...@mail.gmail.com > Nobody responded to that, and I have not seen any committer say that > they are in favor of this. Against that, three committers (Tom, > Stephen, me) have taken the view that they are opposed to at least > some parts of it. No changes to the patch have resulted from those > complaints. So this is just submitting the same thing over and over > again and hoping that the fourth or fifth committer who looks at this > is going to have a different opinion than the first three, or fail to > notice the previous discussion. I concur that this is expanding pgbench's expression language well beyond what anybody has shown a need for. I'm also concerned that there's an opportunity cost here, in that the patch establishes a precedence ordering for its new operators, which we'd have a hard time changing later. That's significant because the proposed precedence is different from what you'd get for similarly-named operators on the backend side. I realize that it's trying to follow the C standard instead, but do we really want to open that can of worms right now? That's a decision I'd much rather put off if we need not make it now. I'd be okay with the parts of this that duplicate existing backend syntax and semantics, but I don't especially want to invent further than that. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
