| From: | Mark Rofail <markm(dot)rofail(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
| Subject: | Re: GSoC 2017: Foreign Key Arrays |
| Date: | 2017-08-08 13:12:13 |
| Message-ID: | CAJvoCus0Wck+JT4rnt0vMZY+Bi4ZPSA=T=t7QBj_T-YvAKGWpQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
>
> Do we already assume that default btree opclass for array element type
> matches PK opclass when using @>> operator on UPDATE/DELETE of referenced
> table?
>
I believe so, since it's a polymorphic function.
> If so, we don't introduce additional restriction here...
>
You mean to remove the wrapper query ?
> GROUP BY would also use default btree/hash opclass for element type. It
> doesn't differ from DISTINCT from that point.
>
Then there's no going around this limitation,
Best Regard,
Mark Rofail
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2017-08-08 13:24:30 | Re: GSoC 2017: Foreign Key Arrays |
| Previous Message | Rushabh Lathia | 2017-08-08 12:48:59 | Re: reload-through-the-top-parent switch the partition table |