| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Subject: | Re: Hash Functions |
| Date: | 2017-09-01 03:07:09 |
| Message-ID: | 21698.1504235229@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> ALTER OPERATOR FAMILY ADD FUNCTION ... ?
>>
>> That would result in the functions being considered "loose" in the
>> family rather than bound into an operator class. I think that's
>> actually the right thing, because they shouldn't be considered
>> to be required.
> But wouldn't that result in a different effect than the core data type
> changes I just did?
Possibly --- I have not read that patch. But considering that all core
functions are pinned anyway, it doesn't seem like it much matters whether
we consider them to be loosely or tightly bound to opclasses. That
should only matter if one tries to drop the function.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-09-01 03:22:37 | Re: bgw_type (was Re: Why does logical replication launcher set application_name?) |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-09-01 03:03:13 | Re: Hash Functions |