From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
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 18:14:33 -0400
Message-ID: <20200420221433.GA21139@alvherre.pgsql> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <15736.1587419419@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On 2020-Apr-20, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
Ah.
> 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.
No disagreement here. 'morerows' attribs are always a messy business.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
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: alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, vyegorov@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
In-Reply-To: <20200420221433.GA21139@alvherre.pgsql>
* 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