Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 18:14:33 -0400
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Victor Yegorov <vyegorov@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
Message-ID: <20200420221433.GA21139@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <15736.1587419419@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

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