Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Given the comment on make_row_op,
>   /*
>    * XXX it's really wrong to generate a simple AND combination for < <=
>    * > >=.  We probably need to invent a new runtime node type to handle
>    * those correctly.  For the moment, though, keep on doing this ...
>    */
> I'd expect it'd be accepted.


Hm, this code is new. As of version 1.169 2004/04/18 it only accepted "=" and
"<>" operators:

    /* Combining operators other than =/<> is dubious... */
    if (row_length != 1 &&
        strcmp(opname, "=") != 0 &&
        strcmp(opname, "<>") != 0)
        ereport(ERROR,
                (errcode(ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED),
          errmsg("row comparison cannot use operator %s",
                 opname)));


I think perhaps it's a bad idea to be introducing support for standard syntax
until we can support the correct semantics. It will only mislead people and
create backwards-compatibility headaches when we fix it to work properly.

Removing <,<=,>,>= would be trivial. Patch (untested):

--- parse_expr.c.~1.174.~       2004-07-28 01:01:12.000000000 -0400
+++ parse_expr.c        2004-07-28 01:52:29.000000000 -0400
@@ -1695,11 +1695,7 @@
         */
        oprname = strVal(llast(opname));
 
-       if ((strcmp(oprname, "=") == 0) ||
-               (strcmp(oprname, "<") == 0) ||
-               (strcmp(oprname, "<=") == 0) ||
-               (strcmp(oprname, ">") == 0) ||
-               (strcmp(oprname, ">=") == 0))
+       if (strcmp(oprname, "=") == 0)
        {
                boolop = AND_EXPR;
        }


Fixing it to write out complex boolean expressions wouldn't be too hard, but
I'm not clear it would be worth it, since I suspect the end result would be as
the comment indicates, to introduce a new runtime node.

-- 
greg


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to