On 2/23/15 3:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I thought of another possibility:
>
> 3. Leave everything as-is but mark the NOT-operator productions as having
> the precedence of NOT rather than of LIKE etc. This would change the
> behavior only for the NOT-LIKE-followed-by-< example, and would make the
> two cases for NOT LIKE consistent though they'd remain inconsistent with
> LIKE. This behavior seems at least somewhat explainable/documentable
> ("NOT-foo operators have the precedence of NOT"), whereas what we have
> seems about impossible to justify.
I don't like this third option. If we're going to change anything, it
should be changed so that LIKE and NOT LIKE have the same precedence.
I realize that the other options are also ugly.
