Diggory Blake writes:
> Would it be possible to just use `IS`, `IS NOT` instead of `IS [NOT]
> DISTINCT FROM`? It's always surprised me that you can write `IS NULL`, `IS
> TRUE`, etc. but they're all special-cased. I could see it introducing a
> parsing ambiguity, but it doesn't seem impossible to
Hi,
On 2019-10-28 10:41:31 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I mean, do we have to break the extensions? If we just added ==
> operators that behaved like IS NOT DISTINCT FROM to each datatype, why
> would anything get broken? I mean, if someone out there has a
> ==(int4,int4) operator, that would get b
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 11:20 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> > I mean, do we have to break the extensions? If we just added ==
> > operators that behaved like IS NOT DISTINCT FROM to each datatype, why
> > would anything get broken?
>
> Is that the proposal? I certainly assumed that Eugen had in mind a
> p
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:07 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Of course neither of those ideas is as short as "==", but
>> I think we should put some weight on not breaking things.
>> I do not believe Robert's position that nobody will complain
>> if we break extensions' use of "==" j
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:07 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> I kind of like AINT ;-) ... although adding two new short,
> fully-reserved words is likely to cause push-back from people
> whose schemas get broken by that.
>
> A more practical answer might be to allow these to be abbreviated
> along the lines
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 10/28/19 8:37 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I certainly agree with that. I do think, though, that IS DISTINCT FROM
>> is a terribly verbose thing to have to write all the time. It's not
>> that bad when you write a query that contains one instance of it, but
>> I've both s
On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 at 13:31, Andrew Dunstan
wrote:
> How about instead of new operators we just provide a nice shorthand way
> of saying these? e.g. ARE and AINT :-)
Seems to me like this is something that those users who want it can
implement for themselves with little to no effort without forc
On 10/28/19 8:37 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 7:54 AM Isaac Morland wrote:
>> Postgres already allows != as a synonym for <>. I think having =! mean
>> something subtly but significantly different is a terrible idea. At a
>> minimum we would have to remove the synonym, whic
Would it be possible to just use `IS`, `IS NOT` instead of `IS [NOT]
DISTINCT FROM`? It's always surprised me that you can write `IS NULL`, `IS
TRUE`, etc. but they're all special-cased. I could see it introducing a
parsing ambiguity, but it doesn't seem impossible to resolve?
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019
po 28. 10. 2019 v 12:39 odesílatel Eugen Konkov napsal:
> > x IS NOT DISTINCT FROM y
>
> > I'm vaguely imagining
>
> > x = {magic} y
>
> > where unlike Eugen's suggestion, "=" is the real name of the underlying
> > comparison operator. For dump/restore this could be spelled verbo
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 7:54 AM Isaac Morland wrote:
> Postgres already allows != as a synonym for <>. I think having =! mean
> something subtly but significantly different is a terrible idea. At a minimum
> we would have to remove the synonym, which would be a backwards compatibility
> break.
On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 at 07:39, Eugen Konkov wrote:
If we should follow this form, then IS DISTINCT should be written as:
> x =! y
> This looks unusual, because JavaScript also follow != form. so I hope
> it will be easy to detect/implement != form, which I used to read as:
> negate the result of
> x IS NOT DISTINCT FROM y
> I'm vaguely imagining
> x = {magic} y
> where unlike Eugen's suggestion, "=" is the real name of the underlying
> comparison operator. For dump/restore this could be spelled verbosely
> as
> x OPERATOR(someplace.=) {magic} y
> The hard part
I wrote:
> To clarify, what I have in mind here doesn't have any effect whatever
> on the parse tree or the execution semantics, it's just about offering
> an alternative SQL textual representation.
Continuing this thread ... if we were just trying to fix the
dump/restore issue without regard for
Hi,
On October 26, 2019 4:09:29 PM PDT, Vik Fearing
wrote:
>On 26/10/2019 17:41, Eugen Konkov wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> I have noticed that it would be cool to use '==' in place of 'IS
>NOT
>> DISTICT FROM'
>>
>> What do you think about this crazy idea?
>
>
>I think this is a terrible idea. The on
On 26/10/2019 17:41, Eugen Konkov wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I have noticed that it would be cool to use '==' in place of 'IS NOT
> DISTICT FROM'
>
> What do you think about this crazy idea?
I think this is a terrible idea. The only reason to do this would be to
index it, but indexes (btree at least) ex
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2019-10-26 14:23:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... instead of
>> x IS NOT DISTINCT FROM y
>> I'm vaguely imagining
>> x = {magic} y
>> where unlike Eugen's suggestion, "=" is the real name of the underlying
>> comparison operator. For dump/restore this could be
Hi,
On 2019-10-26 14:23:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > We do have some unresolved issues around how to let dump/restore
> > control the interpretation of IS [NOT] DISTINCT FROM, cf
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/ffefc172-a487-aa87-a0e7-472bf29735c8%40gmail.com
> > but I d
I wrote:
> We do have some unresolved issues around how to let dump/restore
> control the interpretation of IS [NOT] DISTINCT FROM, cf
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/ffefc172-a487-aa87-a0e7-472bf29735c8%40gmail.com
> but I don't think this idea is helping with that at all.
BTW, takin
On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 12:49 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter writes:
> > On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 06:41:10PM +0300, Eugen Konkov wrote:
> >> I have noticed that it would be cool to use '==' in place of 'IS NOT
> >> DISTICT FROM'
> >> What do you think about this crazy idea?
>
> > Turning "IS
David Fetter writes:
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 06:41:10PM +0300, Eugen Konkov wrote:
>> I have noticed that it would be cool to use '==' in place of 'IS NOT
>> DISTICT FROM'
>> What do you think about this crazy idea?
> Turning "IS NOT DISTINCT FROM" into an operator sounds like a great
> idea.
On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 06:41:10PM +0300, Eugen Konkov wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I have noticed that it would be cool to use '==' in place of 'IS NOT
> DISTICT FROM'
>
> What do you think about this crazy idea?
Turning "IS NOT DISTINCT FROM" into an operator sounds like a great
idea. Let the name bike-
Hi.
I have noticed that it would be cool to use '==' in place of 'IS NOT
DISTICT FROM'
What do you think about this crazy idea?
--
Best regards,
Eugen Konkov
23 matches
Mail list logo
