On 02/17/2012 12:59 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
I don't know whether a similar improvement is
possible in this area, but we're certainly not going to get there by
labeling the user's expectations as unreasonable. I don't think they
are, and the people who wrote MySQL and Oracle evidently agree.
The people who wrote MySQL had very poor taste in a lot of areas, and
we are not going to blindly follow their lead. Oracle is not a terribly
presentable system either. Having said that, I don't object to any
clean improvements we can think of in this area --- but "make it work
more like MySQL" had better not be the only argument for it.
Hey, if I preferred MySQL to PostgreSQL, I wouldn't be here. That
doesn't mean that there are exactly 0 things that they do better than
we do. What I'm unhappy about isn't that we're not bug-compatible
with MySQL, but rather that, in this case, I like MySQL's behavior
better, and the fact that they've made it work means it's not
theoretically impossible. It just involves some trade-off that I
don't believe we've thought about hard enough.
Standards compliance is a means to an end. The purpose of having
standards is to allow for interoperable implementations of the same
underlying functionality. That doesn't mean we should copy
non-standard warts, of course, but it isn't obvious to me that this is
a wart. No one has suggested that the user's actual query has more
than one reasonable interpretation, so complaining that it's ambiguous
doesn't impress me very much.
Assuming we had the cast, What would "intval like '1%'" mean? You're
going to match 1, 10..19, 100..199, 1000..1999 ...
Now maybe there's a good use for such a test, but I'm have a VERY hard
time imagining what it might be.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
