Re: Allowing GIN array_ops to work on anyarray

From: Enrique Meneses <emmeneses(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Allowing GIN array_ops to work on anyarray
Date: 2016-09-26 16:04:05
Message-ID: CAPteHYVozpk-+fdm59OarZFpTdUgdYOv_nitNZa6D3pKmmTkHg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Great, given it does not apply to this patch, then all the other tests
passed and the change looks good.

Thank you,
Enrique

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 6:27 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Enrique Meneses <emmeneses(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I was not sure what "Spec compliant means"... so I did not select as
> tested or passed. What should I do to validate that this change is "Spec
> compliant"?
>
> It's irrelevant to this patch, AFAICS. The SQL standard doesn't discuss
> indexes at all, much less legislate on which operator classes ought to
> exist for GIN indexes.
>
> regards, tom lane
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2016-09-26 16:16:31 Re: [HACKERS] temporary table vs array performance
Previous Message David G. Johnston 2016-09-26 15:49:42 Re: [HACKERS] temporary table vs array performance