Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: new version of contrib-intarray

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: new version of contrib-intarray
Date: 2001-01-29 14:48:21
Message-ID: 24301.980779701@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> writes:
>  gist__int_ops    |       1007
>  gist__intbig_ops |       1007

> we want gist__int_ops to be default index opclass.
> If we delete gist__intbig_ops entry from opclass, then we couldn't use
> gist__intbig_ops !

Put in gist__intbig_ops with zero for the default type.  You should
never have more than one entry in pg_opclass claiming to be the default
for a given type OID.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-01-29 15:03:40
Subject: Re: scan.l simplifications
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-01-29 14:43:35
Subject: Re: Ungraceful handling of fatal flex errors

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group