On 2013-09-18 11:50:23 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> For my 2c on this, while this can be useful for *us*, and maybe folks
> hacking pretty close to PG, I can't get behind introducing this as an
> '===' or some such operator. I've missed why this can't be a simple
> function and why in the world we would want to encourage users to use
> this by making it look like a normal language construct of SQL, which
> damn well better consider numbers which are equal in value to be equal,
> regardless of their representation.
I certainly understand the feeling...
I think this really needs to have an obscure name. Like ==!!== or
somesuch (is equal very much, but doesn't actually test for equality ;))
> What the heck is the use case for this being a user-oriented, SQL
> operator..?
The materalized view code uses generated SQL, so it has to be SQL
accessible. And it needs to be an operator because the join planning
code requires that :(
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services
