Robert Haas <> writes:
> OK, but I think it's also going to cost you an extra syscache lookup,
> no?  You're going to have to check for this new support function
> first, and then if you don't find it, you'll have to check for the
> original one.  I don't think there's any higher-level caching around
> opfamilies to save our bacon here, is there?

[ shrug... ] If you are bothered by that, get off your duff and provide
the function for your datatype.  But it's certainly going to be in the
noise for btree index usage, and I submit that query parsing/setup
involves quite a lot of syscache lookups already.  I think that as a
performance objection, the above is nonsensical.  (And I would also
comment that your proposal with a handle is going to involve a table
search that's at least as expensive as a syscache lookup.)

                        regards, tom lane

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to