On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 10:36 AM Vik Fearing <v...@postgresfriends.org> wrote: > So if I make a complex UDT where a NOT operator makes a lot of sense[*], > why wouldn't I be allowed to make a prefix operator ! for it? All for > what? That one person in the corner over there who doesn't want to > rewrite their query to use factorial() instead? > > I'm -1 on keeping ! around as a hard-coded postfix operator.
Fair enough. I think you may be in the majority on that one, too. I just wanted to raise the issue, and we'll see if anyone else agrees. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
