Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <> writes:
> > This has been saved for the 8.2 release:
> >
> Uh, why do we need this at all?  "NOT (tid = tid)" covers the
> functionality already.

tid should be a fully functional type, at least for = and !=.

> I disagree strongly with renumbering existing hand-assigned OIDs for
> this.  There's too much risk of breakage and no benefit.


> Also, you forgot to add the negator cross-links between the operators.


  Bruce Momjian                        |               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
       choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not

Reply via email to