public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
To: Matthias van de Meent <[email protected]>
Cc: Gurjeet Singh <[email protected]>
Cc: Postgres Hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Named Operators
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 10:21:36 -0500
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEze2WjeYjcf-bm_4gggK7PQ+9fQQ6=hzGeYxTRY9r+D-BPt8g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABwTF4VVuacLV+coERacdDxUXg5tDMHZxvgH5+ek0UZvoq386g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAEze2WjeYjcf-bm_4gggK7PQ+9fQQ6=hzGeYxTRY9r+D-BPt8g@mail.gmail.com>
Matthias van de Meent <[email protected]> writes:
> I'm -1 on the chosen syntax; :name: shadows common variable
> substitution patterns including those of psql.
Yeah, this syntax is DOA because of that. I think almost
anything you might invent is going to have conflict risks.
We could probably make it work by allowing the existing OPERATOR
syntax to take things that look like names as well as operators,
like
expr3 OPERATOR(contains_all) expr4
But that's bulky enough that nobody will care to use it.
On the whole I don't see this proposal going anywhere.
There's too much investment in the existing operator names,
and too much risk of conflicts if you try to shorten the
syntax.
regards, tom lane
view thread (2+ messages)
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Named Operators
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox