> > Is it bad code? Not for people who come from a C/C++/Java background.
>
> It's not the sql operator.
Yes.
> Every week I meet MySql people that want to port their application to
> another database and run into problems because they use some mysql
> construct instead of the standard sql construct. I fail to see it as a
> good thing for pg to add more non standard constructs where that
> standard works fine. Extensions for things that are hard/impossible to
> do with standard sql is a different thing (but should still be done with
> care).
If you want to promote postgreSQL, then it should be good that anything
from outside (whether standard or not) can work with postgreSQL, but
anything that work in pg may not work outside;-)
This pseudo portability strategy is used by Oracle, IBM, M$ or mysql...
That makes you're clients stay with you longer;-) So usually it is a
success...
semi joke: I was not aware that there is such a thing as an SQL standard.
I have the O'Reilly book about SQL, which declines *every* command for
SQL Server, Oracle, MySQL, PostgreSQL...
> If people want it I'd rather have them create the operators themself.
Sure, it is possible to do it so. But if it is in the default
installation, it would help me;-)
From my point of view, my students come from a java first course, so they
have to learn again some new syntax and new operators. Small stuff, but
it can help to say "same as java" and go on to new concepts.
Also, if I add some new operators in pg_operator, say && for AND, I'm not
sure the optimiser will know that is a AND and take that into account.
> That's my view.
Yep.
--
Fabien Coelho - coelho@cri.ensmp.fr