Matteo Beccati <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Tom Lane ha scritto:
>> OK, so if everyone is leaning to #3, the name game remains to be played.
>> Do we all agree on this:
>>
>>      "x @> y" means "x contains y"
>>      "x @< y" means "x is contained in y"
>>
>> Are we all prepared to sign a solemn oath to commit hara-kiri if we
>> invent a new datatype that gets this wrong?  No?  Maybe these still
>> aren't obvious enough.
>
> Does this mean that also contrib/ltree operators will likely change for
> consistency?
>
> ltree @> ltree
>     - returns TRUE if left argument is an ancestor of right argument (or
> equal).
> ltree <@ ltree
>     - returns TRUE if left argument is a descendant of right argument (or
> equal).

If you consider ltree entries to be sets containing all their children then
those sound consistent.

-- 
  Gregory Stark
  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?

               http://archives.postgresql.org

Reply via email to