Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > Interesting stuff. Here's a small recommendation for a couple of those > new messages.
Hm. I don't object to folding those two messages into one, but now that I look at it, the text needs some more work anyway, perhaps. What we're actually checking is not so much whether the IS DISTINCT FROM construct returns a set as whether the underlying equality operator does. If we want to be pedantic about it, we'd end up writing something like "equality operator used by %s must not return a set" But perhaps it's okay to fuzz the distinction and just write "%s must not return a set" You could justify that on the reasoning that if we were to allow this then an underlying "=" that returned a set would presumably cause IS DISTINCT FROM or NULLIF to also return a set. I'm kind of thinking that the second wording is preferable, but there's room to argue that the first is more precise. Opinions? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers