"woger151" <woger151@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Why wouldn't <~~(item_1) + <~~(item_2) be parsed as (<~~(item_1)) + > (<~~(item_2))? Because it's parsed as <~~ ( (item_1) + ( <~~ (item_2) ) ) "+" binds more tightly than any non-built-in operator, per the precedence chart in the manual: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/static/sql-syntax-lexical.html#SQL-PRECEDENCE so this interpretation is preferred over the alternative ( <~~ (item_1) ) + ( <~~ (item_2) ) Those are the only two possibilities without getting into right-unary operators, which the parser is generally designed not to do if it can avoid it. regards, tom lane
