Re: Hash Functions

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>
Subject: Re: Hash Functions
Date: 2017-09-01 03:03:13
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaiQgEGBc59UG0za8uUtgz0PQzwBeGzK2YHo2+WV3-aig@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I think this takes care of adding not only the infrastructure but
>> support for all the core data types, but I'm not quite sure how to
>> handle upgrading types in contrib. It looks like citext, hstore, and
>> several data types provided by isn have hash opclasses, and I think
>> that there's no syntax for adding a support function to an existing
>> opclass. We could add that, but I'm not sure how safe it would be.
>
> ALTER OPERATOR FAMILY ADD FUNCTION ... ?
>
> That would result in the functions being considered "loose" in the
> family rather than bound into an operator class. I think that's
> actually the right thing, because they shouldn't be considered
> to be required.

But wouldn't that result in a different effect than the core data type
changes I just did?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-09-01 03:07:09 Re: Hash Functions
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-09-01 02:55:01 Re: Hash Functions