Re: hstore ==> and deprecate =>

Florian Pflug <fgp@phlo.org>

From: Florian Pflug <fgp@phlo.org>

To: David E. Wheeler <david@kineticode.com>

Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Michael Glaesemann <grzm@seespotcode.net>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>

Date: 2010-06-17T20:30:24Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Jun 17, 2010, at 2:56 , David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2010, at 4:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 
>>> hstore => text[] is new in 9.0.
>> 
>> Wup, sorry, I read this as being the other operator.  Nevermind ...
>> 
>> (FWIW, I share your dislike of & for this operator.  I just haven't
>> got a better idea.)
> 
> There aren't any very good choices.

Since there seems to be no consensus on this, maybe thats a sign that there shouldn't be an operator for this at all. I suggested & due due the similarities to ?&, but I can see why people object to that - mainly because it looks like an predicate, not like an operation on hstores.

How about turning it into a function
    hstore hstore(hstore, text[])
instead?

Could also be hstore_restrict if people think naming it just hstore is ambiguous.

best regards,
Florian Pflug