Re: Operator class group proposal

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Operator class group proposal
Date: 2006-12-13 22:42:37
Message-ID: 12615.1166049757@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> We further require that any given opclass be a member of at most one class
> group (this simplifies matters, and there isn't any application I can see
> for one opclass being in more than one group), and that a class group
> contain at most one opclass for a given datatype (ditto).

BTW, I forgot to mention one of the motivations for that last
restriction: I'm thinking it would be convenient to allow index
declarations to accept either an opclass name or a class group name.
Thus you could say "pattern_ops" instead of being specific about
"varchar_pattern_ops" or "text_pattern_ops". Not sure whether
there's a need to worry about name collisions ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew - Supernews 2006-12-14 00:25:55 Re: recovery.conf parsing problems
Previous Message Tatsuo Ishii 2006-12-13 22:35:17 Re: pg_standby and build farm