Re: Operator class group proposal

Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Hm, would we still need all the cross-data-type btree operators?

Yes, I think so; remember all the pain we had when we didn't have
indexable cross-type operators and spent years looking for a non-broken
way of introducing casts to solve the problem. Those were fundamental
semantic problems and AFAICS we'd be right back into that if we take
cross-type operators out of the opclasses again.

Basically what I'm on about here is that the way we shoehorned
cross-type operators into opclasses was a kluge. Which was not a bad
idea when we weren't yet sure it would solve the problem. But now it's
looking better and better to take the next step and allow opclasses to
support multiple types explicitly.

regards, tom lane