Re: pg_dump versus views and opclasses

From: "Brendan Jurd" <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_dump versus views and opclasses
Date: 2009-01-17 15:56:34
Message-ID: 37ed240d0901170756i2c2e673cpb68df9326f948c98@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 2:52 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Brendan Jurd" <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Update. Turns out that 8.4 DOES know how to execute the view. If you
>> try to group on a user-defined composite type, 8.4 just goes ahead and
>> groups it, rather than giving the old "could not identify an ordering
>> operator" error.
>
> 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?

Cheers,
BJ

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-01-17 16:05:14 Re: pg_dump versus views and opclasses
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-01-17 15:52:49 Re: pg_dump versus views and opclasses