Re: pg_dump versus views and opclasses

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Brendan Jurd" <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_dump versus views and opclasses
Date: 2009-01-17 16:05:14
Message-ID: 12510.1232208314@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Brendan Jurd" <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 2:52 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Is there a hash opclass for the type? 8.4 can group types that have
>> hash but not btree opclasses, but prior versions insisted on btree.

> Well I sure didn't create one. I've only been attempting to create a
> btree opclass. Is there some kind of default hash opclass for
> composites?

No ... but after poking around in the system catalogs I notice there
*is* a default btree opclass for composites, as of 8.4 ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Brendan Jurd 2009-01-17 16:25:45 Re: pg_dump versus views and opclasses
Previous Message Brendan Jurd 2009-01-17 15:56:34 Re: pg_dump versus views and opclasses