| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Subject: | Re: Hash Functions |
| Date: | 2017-09-01 03:03:13 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaiQgEGBc59UG0za8uUtgz0PQzwBeGzK2YHo2+WV3-aig@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I think this takes care of adding not only the infrastructure but
>> support for all the core data types, but I'm not quite sure how to
>> handle upgrading types in contrib. It looks like citext, hstore, and
>> several data types provided by isn have hash opclasses, and I think
>> that there's no syntax for adding a support function to an existing
>> opclass. We could add that, but I'm not sure how safe it would be.
>
> ALTER OPERATOR FAMILY ADD FUNCTION ... ?
>
> That would result in the functions being considered "loose" in the
> family rather than bound into an operator class. I think that's
> actually the right thing, because they shouldn't be considered
> to be required.
But wouldn't that result in a different effect than the core data type
changes I just did?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-09-01 03:07:09 | Re: Hash Functions |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-09-01 02:55:01 | Re: Hash Functions |