2008/12/9 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> "Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
>> 2008/12/9 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
>>> ... and it breaks an operator that's already in use.
>
>> what is acceptable workaround? I unhappy, so this symbol was used for
>> this minor contrib module (for this operator doesn't exists regress
>> test).
>
> If you could prove that it were *only* being used by this contrib module
> then I might hold still for replacing it. But you can't. The odds are
> good that people have custom data types using similarly-named operators.
it means, so we must not implement any new operator?
regards
Pavel Stehule
>
> regards, tom lane
>
