MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <28589.1396992841@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <27299.1396989666@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAM3SWZQGZyqSBzaFZ4gmtnQZpcXLE=ceUL_O29gtMgnP=AvC+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <28589.1396992841@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 14:39:29 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAM3SWZRAxisGCdODhbgeiNL6tayqL18XMzun4W3xesASmKfwDA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation
From: Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> (BTW, wasn't there some discussion of changing our minds about which
> one is the default?  We already have one bug report complaining about
> jsonb_ops' size restriction, so that seems to be evidence in favor
> of changing ...)

Yes, there was. I very nearly came down on the side of making
jsonb_hash_ops the default, but given that it doesn't make all
operators indexable, I ultimately decided against supporting that
course of action. I thought that that would be an odd limitation for
the default GIN opclass to have. It was a very close call in my mind,
and if you favor changing the default now, in light of the few
complaints we've heard, I think that's a reasonable decision. That
said, as I noted in the main -bugs thread, the case presented is
fairly atypical.


-- 
Peter Geoghegan


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers