Feedback-ID: ie0a040ee:Fastmail
Message-ID: <a37f180d-b54b-46d6-9e52-cc15f32be200@eisentraut.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 08:58:55 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: SQL:2011 application time
Content-Language: en-US
To: Paul Jungwirth <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com>,
 jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
References: <CA+renyUApHgSZF9-nd-a0+OPGharLQLO=mDHcY4_qQ0+noCUVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5157e85a-6007-27a7-853a-5601d9c3722f@illuminatedcomputing.com>
 <CACJufxGCWDSK2pYMwNdsyDGk6skbP_L5yvSBK67L6pxbGUF8OQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <5a16a59a-d497-7d72-07aa-0afc09d5193a@illuminatedcomputing.com>
 <CACJufxG_iZc8hbdcfjkU6q81kLf4R2Fp=VyDZbyhocuTbMNVEw@mail.gmail.com>
 <b8ef855d-216b-5499-6a6e-ec883a32bd96@illuminatedcomputing.com>
 <CACJufxGnN6-513copYkpgJia6Qq7vKtO6q7cigUpA=4Evozppg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACJufxGsjGXbKT-qbPYtspLxN74B8Q8dBXRZV+HfgqC0hh-ZNQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACJufxGt4oYfa7UN2eAXymgOKH1irbhC5eY_oNkkdj30w-fefw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACJufxExyO_mN8-OkgaTdgqmE5OfE=RBoQXizf=8uRj4c-pAYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACJufxGeUsmxOhnd2760kBv-hUWRwCy7A0s45pGSPTe8DJVTGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2d9740ad-3bb7-473c-8441-344351caa8ee@illuminatedcomputing.com>
 <fd41e772-296e-43e9-a70e-2e27bb8b1cd5@eisentraut.org>
 <af62a16b-9f88-4746-8e87-fdf0c242b266@illuminatedcomputing.com>
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
In-Reply-To: <af62a16b-9f88-4746-8e87-fdf0c242b266@illuminatedcomputing.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/a37f180d-b54b-46d6-9e52-cc15f32be200%40eisentraut.org>
Precedence: bulk

On 17.11.23 19:39, Paul Jungwirth wrote:
> But I feel the overall approach is wrong: originally I used hardcoded 
> "=" and "&&" operators, and you asked me to look them up by strategy 
> number instead. But that leads to trouble with core gist types vs 
> btree_gist types. The core gist opclasses use RT*StrategyNumbers, but 
> btree_gist creates opclasses with BT*StrategyNumbers.

Ouch.

That also provides the answer to my question #2 here: 
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6f010a6e-8e20-658b-dc05-dc9033a694da%40eisentraut.org

I don't have a good idea about this right now.  Could we just change 
btree_gist perhaps?  Do we need a new API for this somewhere?