Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56])
	by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps
 (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256)
	(Exim 4.89)
	(envelope-from <pgsql-hackers-owner+archive@lists.postgresql.org>)
	id 1gJTHs-0001Bh-6Z
	for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2018 01:02:40 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org)
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89)
	(envelope-from <pgsql-hackers-owner+archive@lists.postgresql.org>)
	id 1gJTHo-0003HM-MJ
	for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2018 01:02:36 +0000
Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29])
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256)
	(Exim 4.89)
	(envelope-from <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
	id 1gJTHo-0003HE-FG
	for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2018 01:02:36 +0000
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130])
	by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256)
	(Exim 4.89)
	(envelope-from <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
	id 1gJTHg-0007si-Ur
	for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2018 01:02:35 +0000
Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id wA512PSk017189
	for <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>; Sun, 4 Nov 2018 20:02:25 -0500
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Unused entry in pg_opfamily
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <17187.1541379745.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2018 20:02:25 -0500
Message-ID: <17188.1541379745@sss.pgh.pa.us>
List-Id: <pgsql-hackers.lists.postgresql.org>
List-Help: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Post: <mailto:pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Owner: <mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Archive: <https://www.postgresql.org/list/pgsql-hackers>
Precedence: bulk

I happened to notice that the pg_opfamily entry with OID 4035
(jsonb_ops for GIST) is not referenced anywhere; apparently it
was put in in anticipation of support that never materialized.
We still pass make check-world if it's removed.

Getting rid of it seems like a no-brainer, but it surprised me
a bit that none of our automated crosschecks had noticed this.
It looks like the reason is that all the amvalidate logic is
driven off pg_opclass entries, and so an opfamily that contains
no opclass is never examined.

We should, therefore, at least add an oprsanity check for
opfamilies without opclasses.  I wonder how far it's worth
going to check for other orphaned catalog entries.

			regards, tom lane