On Jun 12, 2010, at 7:15 AM, Florian Pflug wrote:
>> It's reasonable to say that the first two are bad design, but I'm
>> a bit less willing to say that the last one is. What shall we
>> do with that?
>
> Hm, the last one seems to be more akin to
> hstore - text yields hstore (key removed)
> hstore - text[] yields hstore (keys in array removed)
> hstore - hstore yields hstore (keys in hstore removed)
Well, no, the keys aren't removed: you get back an hstore with only those keys
(the lhs is unchanged).
> since it's not a constructor like the first two, but rather an
> (intersection-like) operation on an existing hstore.
>
> Inspired by the already existing
> hstore ?& text[] yields boolean (true if set of keys subset of
> array)
> I suggest
> hstore & text[]
> as a replacement.
Yes, agreed.
That just leaves
text[] => text[] yields hstore (with N elements)
Which, IIRC, is new in 9.1, so could in theory be removed, especially if there
was an
hstore(text[], text[])
Best,
David
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
