Re: Gin index on array of uuid

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Enrique MailingLists <enrique(dot)mailing(dot)lists(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Gin index on array of uuid
Date: 2016-06-21 19:20:29
Message-ID: 15293.1466536829@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2016-06-21 19:22:09 Re: pg_bsd_indent - improvements around offsetof and sizeof
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2016-06-21 19:16:39 Re: pg_bsd_indent - improvements around offsetof and sizeof