From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
cc: Victor Yegorov <vyegorov@gmail.com>,
        PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
In-reply-to: <20200420213140.GA29785@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20200420213140.GA29785@alvherre.pgsql>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
	message dated "Mon, 20 Apr 2020 17:31:41 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <15735.1587419419.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 17:50:19 -0400
Message-ID: <15736.1587419419@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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