| From: | Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Issue with custom operator in simple case |
| Date: | 2025-06-25 08:42:29 |
| Message-ID: | CACG=ezYS20tABRAngyYs7vnMWJ3f-nf_nSEs_=i3z8=C-txJew@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 at 19:28, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > 1) Can this behaviour, in the case described above, when after dump and
> > recovery we receive different data, be considered correct?
>
> It's undesirable, for sure.
>
> > 4) Does it make sense to extend the "simple case" grammar so that it can
> > accept a custom operator?
>
> This has been discussed before, see e.g. [1][2]. Unfortunately CASE
>
> [1]
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20141009200031.25464.53769%40wrigleys.postgresql.org
> [2]
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/10492.1531515255%40sss.pgh.pa.us#8755318d9b16ec32296398f0893a44d7
Thank you for pointing this out. I'll have to read those discussions.
--
Best regards,
Maxim Orlov.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christoph Berg | 2025-06-25 09:00:38 | Re: pgsql: Introduce pg_shmem_allocations_numa view |
| Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2025-06-25 08:25:34 | Re: Slot's restart_lsn may point to removed WAL segment after hard restart unexpectedly |