Re: Gin index on array of uuid
От | M Enrique |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Gin index on array of uuid |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CADCw5QacU7je9+fD62TPQT+ha2Mibuz_FdGtHJqYookaZOJ56w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Gin index on array of uuid (Oleg Bartunov <obartunov@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Thank you.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:06 PM Oleg Bartunov <obartunov@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 6:17 AM, M Enrique <enrique.mailing.lists@gmail.com> wrote:What's a good source code entry point to review how this is working for anyarray currently? I am new to the postgres code. I spend some time looking for it but all I found is the following (which I have not been able to decipher yet).Thank you,EnriqueOn Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 12:20 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:Enrique MailingLists <enrique.mailing.lists@gmail.com> writes:
> Currently creating an index on an array of UUID involves defining an
> operator class. I was wondering if this would be a valid request to add as
> part of the uuid-ossp extension? This seems like a reasonable operator to
> support as a default for UUIDs.
This makes me itch, really, because if we do this then we should logically
do it for every other add-on type.
It seems like we are not that far from being able to have just one GIN
opclass on "anyarray". The only parts of this declaration that are
UUID-specific are the comparator function and the storage type, both of
which could be gotten without that much trouble, one would think.
> Any downsides to adding this as a default?
Well, it'd likely break things at dump/reload time for people who had
already created a competing "default for _uuid" opclass manually. I'm not
entirely sure, but possibly replacing the core opclasses with a single one
that is "default for anyarray" could avoid such failures. We'd have to
figure out ambiguity resolution rules.
regards, tom lane
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: