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 6357.1308248058@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Boolean operators without commutators vs. ALL/ANY  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I'm having trouble avoiding the conclusion that we're trying to shove
> a round peg into a square hole.  The idea that we have to have a
> commutator for every operator just because we don't handle left and
> right symmetrically sits poorly with me.  I can't really argue with
> your statement that it's the easiest way to address Florian's gripe,
> but because it almost surely is.  But it still feels like a kludge.
> The syntax foo = ANY(bar) is really quite a poorly-designed syntax,
> because the top-level operation is really "ANY", and it has three
> arguments: foo, =, bar.  If the SQL committee had standardized on
> ANY(foo = $0, bar) or some such thing we wouldn't be having this
> conversation.

[ shrug... ]  Take it up with the committee.  The syntax is what it is,
and we should select our operators to fit it, not vice versa.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alexander Korotkov
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP: Fast GiST index build
Next
From: Alexey Klyukin
Date:
Subject: Re: proposal: a validator for configuration files