Matteo Beccati <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane ha scritto: >> OK, so if everyone is leaning to #3, the name game remains to be played. >> Do we all agree on this: >> >> "x @> y" means "x contains y" >> "x @< y" means "x is contained in y" >> >> Are we all prepared to sign a solemn oath to commit hara-kiri if we >> invent a new datatype that gets this wrong? No? Maybe these still >> aren't obvious enough. > > Does this mean that also contrib/ltree operators will likely change for > consistency? > > ltree @> ltree > - returns TRUE if left argument is an ancestor of right argument (or > equal). > ltree <@ ltree > - returns TRUE if left argument is a descendant of right argument (or > equal).
If you consider ltree entries to be sets containing all their children then those sound consistent. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
