Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 12:15 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> So, how do we move forward? I'm perfectly willing to look into
>> the derive-a-name-from-the-expression idea, but I think that'd
>> best be done in a separate patch.
> I'm not sure. To me, the munging of everything together under the name
> "expr" is the root of the problem here, and since this patch isn't
> really addressing that problem, it's kind of to one side of what I see
> as the main point. However, that's a judgement call, and if you or
> others see it differently, then so be it.
Well, let's leave it as a difference of opinion for the moment.
I do agree that improving the names generated for expression indexes
would be useful independently of this. I propose setting this patch
aside for the time being, and I will go look into that, and then
if that gets accepted we can come back here and discuss how much
of a problem remains.
regards, tom lane
