From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Simplifying pg_am representation of index sortability |
Date: | 2007-01-21 09:39:32 |
Message-ID: | 87wt3gg1m3.fsf@stark.xeocode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> So I'm thinking that the pg_am columns amorderstrategy and amdescorder are
> redundant and should be replaced with a simple boolean, "amcansort" perhaps.
> Any objections?
Any chance of getting rid of the remaining inter-operator relationship columns
in pg_operator? At least for operator with btree strategy numbers oprcom and
oprnegate can be deduced. I think you already got rid of the rest. They are
quite a pain when defining cross-data-type operators.
I guess it's tricky since there may be operators which have valid negators and
commutators but which don't get used by any btree operator class. Does
Postgres actually make use of the oprcom and oprnegate in that case? Could
they be used only for such operators to provide values for when they can't be
automatically deduced?
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2007-01-21 11:17:31 | Re: Simplifying pg_am representation of index sortability |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-21 08:44:48 | Re: ECPG regression tests seem rather fundamentally broken |