On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 06:32:22PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> This is a broken operator class definition (it's missing most of the
> expected operators for a btree opclass). It's not exactly surprising
> that it causes problems. I have zero desire to try to make the system
> bulletproof against incorrectly-made opclasses.
Agreed. But isn't the proposal of Dmitry to switch the assertion to
an error a good thing though? It is not particularly user-friendly to
just throw an assertion if we could warn at the early stages that
something's wrong.
--
Michael