From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tommy Pavlicek <tommypav122(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] ltree hash functions |
Date: | 2023-06-17 19:57:33 |
Message-ID: | 80f51c3c-1c3a-41aa-e5c3-0d07c6c7c217@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/17/23 20:19, Tom Lane wrote:
> Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> I guess the "correct" solution would be to extend ALTER OPERATOR. I
>> wonder why it's not supported - it's clearly an intentional decision
>> (per comment in AlterOperator). So what might break if this changes for
>> an existing operator?
>
> This code was added by commit 321eed5f0. The thread leading up to
> that commit is here:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/3348985.V7xMLFDaJO%40dinodell
>
> There are some nontrivial concerns in there about breaking the
> semantics of existing exclusion constraints, for instance. I think
> we mostly rejected the concern about invalidation of cached plans
> as already-covered, but that wasn't the only problem.
>
> However, I think we could largely ignore the issues if we restricted
> ALTER OPERATOR to only add commutator, negator, hashes, or merges
> properties to operators that lacked them before --- which'd be the
> primary if not only use-case anyway. That direction can't break
> anything.
>
Sound reasonable.
Tommy, are you interested in extending ALTER OPERATOR to allow this,
which would also allow fixing the ltree operator?
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2023-06-17 22:46:53 | Re: Bypassing shared_buffers |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2023-06-17 18:47:35 | Re: Assert while autovacuum was executing |