Re: [HACKERS] = is not always defined as equality is bad

> 
> Vadim wrote:
> > but this will be "known bug": this breaks OO-nature of Postgres,
> because of
> > operators can be overrided and '=' can mean  s o m e t h i n g (not
> equality).
> > Example: box data type. For boxes, = means equality of _areas_ and =~
> > means that boxes are the same ==> =~ ANY should be used for IN.
> 
> Ok, here I think there should be a restriction to have the = operator
> always be defined as equality operator. Because in the long run it will
> be hard 
> to write equality restrictions.   a = a1 and b =~ b1 and c +*#~ c1.
> Also =, >, <, >= and the like will allways be candidates for use by the
> optimizer
> (boolean math to simplify restriction or to make an existing index
> usable could be used).

I think each operator in pg_operator has a 'commutative' field for this:

| oprcom                           | oid                              |    4 |


-- 
Bruce Momjian
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us