Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Advertising
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
This has been saved for the 8.2 release:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold
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.
Agreed.
Also, you forgot to add the negator cross-links between the operators.
OK.
I'll redo the patch taking these points into account.
Cheers
Mark
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
