From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Victor Yegorov <vyegorov@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 17:50:19 -0400
Message-ID: <15736.1587419419@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200420213140.GA29785@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20200420213140.GA29785@alvherre.pgsql>
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> There's one with a separate column for the operator, without types, at
> the left (the "with names" example at
> https://postgr.es/m/14380.1587242177@sss.pgh.pa.us ). That seemed
> pretty promising -- not sure why it was discarded.
Well, I wouldn't say it was discarded --- but there sure wasn't
a groundswell of support.
Looking at it again, I'd be inclined not to bother with the
morerows trick but just to have an operator name entry in each row.
This table is a bit of an outlier anyway, I'm finding --- very few
of the operator tables have multiple entries per operator name.
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-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, vyegorov@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
In-Reply-To: <15736.1587419419@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