Re: Gin index on array of uuid

Thank you.

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:06 PM Oleg Bartunov <obartunov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 6:17 AM, M Enrique <
> enrique(dot)mailing(dot)lists(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> What's a good source code entry point to review how this is working for
>> anyarray currently? I am new to the postgres code. I spend some time
>> looking for it but all I found is the following (which I have not been able
>> to decipher yet).
>>
>
> Look on https://commitfest.postgresql.org/4/145/
>
>
>>
>> [image: pasted1]
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Enrique
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 12:20 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>
>>> Enrique MailingLists <enrique(dot)mailing(dot)lists(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> > Currently creating an index on an array of UUID involves defining an
>>> > operator class. I was wondering if this would be a valid request to
>>> add as
>>> > part of the uuid-ossp extension? This seems like a reasonable operator
>>> to
>>> > support as a default for UUIDs.
>>>
>>> This makes me itch, really, because if we do this then we should
>>> logically
>>> do it for every other add-on type.
>>>
>>> It seems like we are not that far from being able to have just one GIN
>>> opclass on "anyarray". The only parts of this declaration that are
>>> UUID-specific are the comparator function and the storage type, both of
>>> which could be gotten without that much trouble, one would think.
>>>
>>> > Any downsides to adding this as a default?
>>>
>>> Well, it'd likely break things at dump/reload time for people who had
>>> already created a competing "default for _uuid" opclass manually. I'm
>>> not
>>> entirely sure, but possibly replacing the core opclasses with a single
>>> one
>>> that is "default for anyarray" could avoid such failures. We'd have to
>>> figure out ambiguity resolution rules.
>>>
>>> regards, tom lane
>>>
>>