Re: @ versus ~, redux

Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> writes:
>>> 3. Leave the existing op names as-is in core and contrib, but consider
>>> them deprecated and add new ops with consistently-chosen names.
>>> (The new ops introduced by GIN should only exist with the new names.)

> #3 looks good to me. Too many users.

Not only that, but it'd be a serious problem for something like a SQL
script to be cross-version-compatible if we reverse the meanings of the
existing operators.

AFAIK all the operators in question exist only in GIST opclasses, so one
possible solution to the multiple-operators-per-slot problem is to
extend the opclasses --- ie, teach the gist_consistent methods to
support two different strategy numbers that do the same thing. Ugly
and tedious, but it'd preserve backward compatibility.

regards, tom lane