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

Re: Removing SORTFUNC_LT/REVLT

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
Cc: andrew(at)supernews(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Removing SORTFUNC_LT/REVLT
Date: 2006-01-01 17:56:11
Message-ID: 26717.1136138171@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 04:33:32PM -0000, Andrew - Supernews wrote:
>> Does it matter? How would the same operator specify different orderings
>> in different operator classes,

> Well, we currently don't forbid it and indeed encourage it (by
> encouraging reverse operator classes) as the only way to handle the
> ORDER a, b DESC case right now.
> I don't think I can find any other examples right now. I don't think
> I'd have a problem with forbidding it at some future date.

Right, the reverse-sort opclass is the only practical example that
anyone's pointed out ... for btree.  For GiST it would be a serious
error to try to restrict operators to appear in at most one opclass.
Therefore, we're not going to be forbidding it, and the code has to
behave in a sane fashion if someone does it.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-01-01 18:30:46
Subject: Why don't we allow DNS names in pg_hba.conf?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-01-01 17:48:51
Subject: Re: EINTR error in SunOS

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