Re: Extending opfamilies for GIN indexes

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> AFAICS that means integrating contrib/intarray into core. Independently
>> of whether that's a good idea or not, PG is supposed to be an extensible
>> system, so it would be nice to have a solution that supported add-on
>> extensions.

> Yeah, I'm just wondering if it's worth the effort, especially in view
> of a rather large patch queue we seem to have outstanding at the
> moment.

Oh, maybe we're not on the same page here: I wasn't really proposing
to do this right now, it's more of a TODO item.

Offhand the only reason to do it now would be if we settled on something
that required a layout change in pg_amop/pg_amproc. Since we already
have one such change in 9.1, getting the additional change done in the
same release would be valuable to reduce the number of distinct cases
for pg_dump and other clients to support.

regards, tom lane