| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Paul Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SQL:2011 application time |
| Date: | 2023-11-20 07:58:55 |
| Message-ID: | a37f180d-b54b-46d6-9e52-cc15f32be200@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 17.11.23 19:39, Paul Jungwirth wrote:
> But I feel the overall approach is wrong: originally I used hardcoded
> "=" and "&&" operators, and you asked me to look them up by strategy
> number instead. But that leads to trouble with core gist types vs
> btree_gist types. The core gist opclasses use RT*StrategyNumbers, but
> btree_gist creates opclasses with BT*StrategyNumbers.
Ouch.
That also provides the answer to my question #2 here:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6f010a6e-8e20-658b-dc05-dc9033a694da%40eisentraut.org
I don't have a good idea about this right now. Could we just change
btree_gist perhaps? Do we need a new API for this somewhere?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-11-20 08:03:28 | Re: Remove MSVC scripts from the tree |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-11-20 07:47:19 | Re: Show WAL write and fsync stats in pg_stat_io |