David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> writes: > On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 06:41:10PM +0300, Eugen Konkov wrote: >> I have noticed that it would be cool to use '==' in place of 'IS NOT >> DISTICT FROM' >> What do you think about this crazy idea?
> Turning "IS NOT DISTINCT FROM" into an operator sounds like a great > idea. No it isn't. For starters, somebody very possibly has used that operator name in an extension. For another, it'd be really inconsistent to have an abbreviation for 'IS NOT DISTINCT FROM' but not 'IS DISTINCT FROM', so you'd need another reserved operator name for that, making the risk of breakage worse. There's an independent set of arguments around why we'd invent a proprietary replacement for perfectly good standard SQL. We do have some unresolved issues around how to let dump/restore control the interpretation of IS [NOT] DISTINCT FROM, cf https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/ffefc172-a487-aa87-a0e7-472bf29735c8%40gmail.com but I don't think this idea is helping with that at all. regards, tom lane
