Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:

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

Reply via email to