From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: osdba <mailtch@163.com>
Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: jkatz@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Document "59.2. Built-in Operator Classes" have a clerical error?
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 19:19:09 -0400
Message-ID: <2985974.1598483949@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200826225837.GA3099@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20200826225837.GA3099@alvherre.pgsql>
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2020-Aug-26, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Stupid question, but do we think the average Postgres user can
>> understand this issue. I am having trouble myself.
> The only reason I think it's worth pointing out, is that the opclass
> name is something you can use in CREATE INDEX, while the opfamily name
> cannot be used there. The original tables can be used for that purpose,
> but the patched tables cannot.
With one eye on the PDF width issue, I propose that we not draw
the distinction, but just list all the relevant operators for each
opclass (its native ones, plus the applicable "loose" operators).
Then we only need two columns, opclass and operators.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, bruce@momjian.us, michael@paquier.xyz, mailtch@163.com, jkatz@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Document "59.2. Built-in Operator Classes" have a clerical error?
In-Reply-To: <2985974.1598483949@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox