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

From David G. Johnston
Subject Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwaF1gAwr890ph0W6hj9cJOENo9Fqw8EO8QT6EQYq7E9ZQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 4:17 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
"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.

Neither:

- (NONE, integer) 

nor 

! (integer, NONE) 

seem bad, and do make very obvious how they are different.

The left margin scanning ability for the symbol (hey, I have an expression here that uses @>, what does that do?) seems worth the bit of novelty required.

David J.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Support for DATETIMEOFFSET
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: where should I stick that backup?