Re: record identical operator

* Andres Freund (andres@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> I think this really needs to have an obscure name. Like ==!!== or
> somesuch (is equal very much, but doesn't actually test for equality ;))

hah.

> > What the heck is the use case for this being a user-oriented, SQL
> > operator..?
>
> The materalized view code uses generated SQL, so it has to be SQL
> accessible. And it needs to be an operator because the join planning
> code requires that :(

Ugh.  This feels like a pretty ugly hack to deal with that.  I haven't
got any magical wand to address it, but making an SQL operator for 'are
these really the same bytes' to deal with what is essentially
implementation detail is _very_ grotty.
Thanks,
    Stephen