Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
Date
Msg-id 6655.1587165419@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?  ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?  ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 4:04 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Especially not for unary operators, where
>> ALTER OPERATOR would have us write "- (NONE, integer)".

> I'd drop the parens for unary and just write "- integer"

We do have some postfix operators still ... although it looks like
there's only one in core.  In any case, the signature line is *the*
thing that is supposed to specify what the syntax is, so I'm not
too pleased with using an ambiguous notation for it.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Support for DATETIMEOFFSET