From: | M Enrique <enrique(dot)mailing(dot)lists(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: Gin index on array of uuid |
Date: | 2016-06-29 03:17:22 |
Message-ID: | CADCw5QZW-qNv1Of65QCC0-idmeW=+ehG88-KVTC+kbxaHookeg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
What's a good source code entry point to review how this is working for
anyarray currently? I am new to the postgres code. I spend some time
looking for it but all I found is the following (which I have not been able
to decipher yet).
[image: pasted1]
Thank you,
Enrique
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 12:20 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Enrique MailingLists <enrique(dot)mailing(dot)lists(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Currently creating an index on an array of UUID involves defining an
> > operator class. I was wondering if this would be a valid request to add
> as
> > part of the uuid-ossp extension? This seems like a reasonable operator to
> > support as a default for UUIDs.
>
> This makes me itch, really, because if we do this then we should logically
> do it for every other add-on type.
>
> It seems like we are not that far from being able to have just one GIN
> opclass on "anyarray". The only parts of this declaration that are
> UUID-specific are the comparator function and the storage type, both of
> which could be gotten without that much trouble, one would think.
>
> > Any downsides to adding this as a default?
>
> Well, it'd likely break things at dump/reload time for people who had
> already created a competing "default for _uuid" opclass manually. I'm not
> entirely sure, but possibly replacing the core opclasses with a single one
> that is "default for anyarray" could avoid such failures. We'd have to
> figure out ambiguity resolution rules.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-06-29 03:23:30 | Re: primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2016-06-29 03:12:50 | dumping database privileges broken in 9.6 |