This has been saved for the 8.4 release:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Gimeno wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes:
> >> That said, bringing PostgreSQL into compliance with the standard
> >> would undoubtedly break some people's existing applications.
>
> I wonder how that compares to broken queries while migrating databases
> from other systems. I'd bet there are more of the latter. We ran into
> that while running a query like: SELECT ... WHERE column <>
> another_column || 'literal';, variants of which I think can be
> relatively common compared to e.g. applications that build a boolean
> array using expr1 <> expr2 || boolean_value.
>
> > The spec seems to barely have a notion of operator precedence at all ---
>
> The precedence is given by the parse tree and is well defined. Perhaps
> it may vary for a given operator depending on the context but it's
> clearly different to the one PostgreSQL is using in the examples I gave.
>
> > for example, all the variants of <predicate> are at the same precedence
> > level, and if I'm reading it right they actively disallow ambiguous
> > cases by requiring parentheses; note the way that <boolean primary>
> > is defined. This entire arrangement breaks down as soon as you consider
> > user-defined operators that yield boolean results. So I'm not
> > particularly excited about the idea of slavish compliance with the spec
> > in this area.
>
> Note that we considered PostgreSQL precisely because of its high
> standards compliance and this problem has been a bit disappointing, even
> more given that I looked for information on what nonstandard bits did
> PostgreSQL have and didn't see this.
>
> In the case of user defined operators I'd expect them to have a fixed
> precedence regardless of the semantics and that can be different
> depending on the operator.
>
> > Given that it's been this way for ten years and no one has complained
> > before, I'm disinclined to change it, and even more disinclined to
> > invest the effort that would be involved in letting the behavior vary
> > at runtime.
>
> It has often happened that a new version has caused the need of porting
> code, that's not new. Users will very likely appreciate compliance with
> the standard even with the hassle of porting the applications, specially
> when the fixes, if they're necessary, can easily be made backwards
> compatible by using parentheses. For that reason I don't think a runtime
> selection of behaviour would be neecessary in this case.
>
> -- Pedro Gimeno
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
