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"

> Does this mean that also contrib/ltree operators will likely change for 
> consistency?

Oh, I hadn't noticed that ltree spells it "<@" rather than "@<".  I'd be
inclined to stick with the ltree precedent.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to