Re: Named Operators

On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 at 16:26, Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 12.01.23 14:55, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> >> Matter of taste, I guess. But more importantly, defining an operator
> >> gives you many additional features that the planner can use to
> >> optimize your query differently, which it can't do with functions. See
> >> the COMMUTATOR, HASHES, etc. clause in the CREATE OPERATOR command.
> > I see. Wouldn't it be better then to instead make it possible for the
> > planner to detect the use of the functions used in operators and treat
> > them as aliases of the operator? Or am I missing something w.r.t.
> > differences between operator and function invocation?
> >
> > E.g. indexes on `int8pl(my_bigint, 1)` does not match queries for
> > `my_bigint + 1` (and vice versa), while they should be able to support
> > that, as OPERATOR(pg_catalog.+(int8, int8)) 's function is int8pl.
>
> I have been thinking about something like this for a long time.
> Basically, we would merge pg_proc and pg_operator internally. Then, all
> the special treatment for operators would also be available to
> two-argument functions.

And single-argument functions in case of prefix operators, right?