Re: Operator class group proposal

From: "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Operator class group proposal
Date: 2006-12-18 10:32:53
Message-ID: E1539E0ED7043848906A8FF995BDA5790198F2D4@m0143.s-mxs.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> pg_opfamily
>
> OID
> opfamid access method OID
> opfname family name
> opfnamespace family namespace
> opfowner owner's OID
>
> But "opfamid" is a really unfortunate name, because it looks way too
> much like it's supposed to be the ID of the family itself, rather than
> of the index AM it's associated with.

I think by convention it is clear that we are talking about opf -- amid,
opfmethod imho removes the connex to amid so I wouldn't do it.

Andreas

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Oleg Bartunov 2006-12-18 11:11:42 quoting problem
Previous Message Teodor Sigaev 2006-12-18 08:44:24 Re: pg_am.amstrategies should be 0 when not meaningful?