On 12/23/2013 12:28 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 6:16 PM, David E. Wheeler <da...@justatheory.com> > wrote: >> * New operators: >> + `hstore -> int`: Get string value at array index (starting at 0) >> + `hstore ^> text`: Get numeric value for key >> + `hstore ^> int`: Get numeric value at array index >> + `hstore ?> text`: Get boolean value for key >> + `hstore ?> int`: Get boolean value at array index >> + `hstore #> text[]`: Get string value for key path >> + `hstore #^> text[]`: Get numeric value for key path >> + `hstore #?> text[]`: Get boolean value for key path >> + `hstore %> text`: Get hstore value for key >> + `hstore %> int`: Get hstore value at array index >> + `hstore #%> text[]`: Get hstore value for key path >> + `hstore ? int`: Does hstore contain array index >> + `hstore #? text[]`: Does hstore contain key path >> + `hstore - int`: Delete index from left operand >> + `hstore #- text[]`: Delete key path from left operand > Although in some ways there's a certain elegance to this, it also > sorta looks like punctuation soup. I can't help wondering whether > we'd be better off sticking to function names. > Has anybody looked into how hard it would be to add "method" notation to postgreSQL, so that instead of calling
getString(hstorevalue, n) we could use hstorevalue.getString(n) -- Hannu Krosing PostgreSQL Consultant Performance, Scalability and High Availability 2ndQuadrant Nordic OÜ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
