Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks for pointing that out. I should have realized that this was the same
> (or at least close to) issue I was thinking would be a problem initially, but
> then I started thinking that '=' promised more than it did and assumed that
> x = y implies foo(x) = foo(y), which as you point out isn't always true.
Hm. This goes back to the earlier conversation about whether = should ever be
true for two objects that aren't, well, equal. I thought there was some
consensus at the time that sorting should impose a superficial ordering on
items that compare equal but aren't in fact the same.
--
greg
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
