On 25/08/2019 21:14, Tom Lane wrote: > Vik Fearing <vik.fear...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF) SELECT * FROM pg_am WHERE amname LIKE '%t%'; >> QUERY PLAN >> ----------------------------------- >> Seq Scan on pg_am >> Filter: (amname ~~ '%t%'::text) >> (2 rows) >> Why don't we convert that back to LIKE? > Trying to do so would make our schema-qualification problems worse > not better. See > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/ffefc172-a487-aa87-a0e7-472bf29735c8%40gmail.com > > particularly > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/10492.1531515...@sss.pgh.pa.us
Oh, okay, that makes sense. Unfortunately. > We really need to invent some weird nonstandard syntax for IS DISTINCT > FROM and related cases, in order to not have broken dump/reload scenarios. > I'd just as soon not do that for LIKE, when the operator syntax serves > well enough. LIKE was just an example among many others. -- Vik Fearing
