Re: Boolean operators without commutators vs. ALL/ANY - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Boolean operators without commutators vs. ALL/ANY
Date
Msg-id 17580.1308199817@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Boolean operators without commutators vs. ALL/ANY  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: Boolean operators without commutators vs. ALL/ANY
Re: Boolean operators without commutators vs. ALL/ANY
List pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> On tis, 2011-06-14 at 15:38 +0200, Florian Pflug wrote:
>> BTW, there's actually precedent for a commutator of "~", namely
>> "@". Some of the geometric types (polygon, box, circle, point,
>> path) use "~" as a commutator for "@" (which stands for "contains"). 

> I wouldn't have a problem with naming the reverse operator "@".

We deprecated those names for the geometric operators largely because
there wasn't any visual correlation between the commutator pairs.
I can't see introducing the same pairing for regex operators if we
already decided the geometric case was a bad idea.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [WIP] Support for "ANY/ALL(array) op scalar" (Was: Re: Boolean operators without commutators vs. ALL/ANY)