Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [216.151.103.158]) by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f4650LA06285 for ; Sun, 6 May 2001 01:00:21 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f4650HR27103; Sun, 6 May 2001 01:00:17 -0400 (EDT) To: "Josh Berkus" cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Dateadd In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to "Josh Berkus" message dated "Sat, 05 May 2001 14:44:28 -0700" Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 01:00:17 -0400 Message-ID: <27100.989125217@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Archive-Number: 200105/36 X-Sequence-Number: 2837 "Josh Berkus" writes: > Speaking of which, why doesn't PostgreSQL allow the use of "+" between > two VARCHARs to mean the same as "||" ? You mean, other than the fact that "||" is the SQL-standard string concatenation operator and "+" isn't? I'm not eager to follow the pied pipers from Redmond down the garden path to completely standards-ignorant products. *Someone's* got to stick up for standards compliance. Microsoft has a vested interest in locking people into their code via gratuitously nonstandard notations ... but let's not be like them. There was some talk recently of putting together packages of function and operator definitions to ease portability from other DBMSes to PG. I'd have no objection to including "+ as string concatenation" in a set of operators that're clearly marked as MS-SQL-isms. But I don't think we'd do the world any favor by adopting a clearly nonstandard notation as part of our standard operator set. regards, tom lane