"Mark Cave-Ayland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The operators I went for were as follows:
> A &<| B - true if A's bounding box overlaps or is below B's bounding > box > A |&> B - true if B's bounding box overlaps or is above B's bounding > box > A <<| B - true if A's bounding box is strictly below B's bounding > box > A |>> B - true if A's bounding box is strictly above B's bounding > box Well, I was proposing more or less that but with ^ because of the precedent of the two existing box_above/box_below operator names. However, I'm quite happy to adopt your names, since that's probably a more widely used precedent. Sold, unless there are objections. (BTW, it does look a bit odd that the "|" moves around in your names. But I don't dislike it enough to not follow the precedent.) > It would be harder for us to change these operators since they already > exist, but then again it would be useful from a maintenance point of view to > keep the strategy numbers and operators the same across both > implementations. Agreed, I'll use your strategy number assignments too. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend