Re: SQL:2011 application time

Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> writes:
> On 26.05.25 23:18, Paul A Jungwirth wrote:
>> Here do we want to say "respective operator class" instead of
>> "respective operator family"? Or "operator class/family"? Technically
>> btree_gist attaches it to the whole opfamily, but that's only because
>> there is no appropriate ALTER OPERATOR CLASS functionality:

> Thanks, I have committed it as is. The function is part of the operator
> family; I guess there could be different interpretations about why that
> is so, but I think this would introduce more confusion if we somehow
> talked about operator classes in this context.

GIST and GIN have traditionally not made any distinction between
operator classes and families: they're always one-class-per-family.
I guess that's because they cater more to one-off opclasses where
there is not meaningful commonality of semantics across opclasses,
nor the possibility of operators belonging to multiple opclasses.

That being the case, I'm hesitant to spend a lot of time worrying
about whether particular behavior belongs at the class or family
level. Without concrete examples to look at, there's little hope
of getting it right anyway. So I'm content with Peter's choice
here. Perhaps sometime in the future we will have useful examples
with which to revisit this question.

[ wanders away wondering about recasting btree_gist and btree_gin
as single opfamilies ... ]

regards, tom lane