Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1891747689A for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 17:13:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6F2AB47683E for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 17:13:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 28099 invoked by uid 0); 29 Oct 2002 22:13:31 -0000 Received: from pd902f09e.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (217.2.240.158) by mail.gmx.net (mp003-rz3) with SMTP; 29 Oct 2002 22:13:31 -0000 Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 23:19:55 +0100 (CET) From: Peter Eisentraut X-X-Sender: peter@localhost.localdomain To: Josh Berkus Cc: Stephan Szabo , Subject: Re: BOOLEAN question In-Reply-To: <200210281729.35967.josh@agliodbs.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200210/394 X-Sequence-Number: 10111 Josh Berkus writes: > I wrote a MAX(bool), what are the chances it would get added to the core? I > don't see any good reason not to have one. One reason not to have one is that Boolean values are not naturally ordered, so a maximum doesn't exist. (Yes, I know there are comparison operators defined for boolean, but that doesn't make it right.) What seems more reasonable is to define conjuntion and disjunction aggregates, which would mostly do the same thing but their semantics wouldn't be as controversial. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net