On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Daniel Farina <dan...@heroku.com> writes: >> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I think it's smarter for us to ship functions, and let users wrap them >>> in operators if they so choose. It's not difficult for people who > >> The problem being: even though pg_operator resolves to functions in >> pg_proc, they have distinct identities as far as the planner is >> concerned w.r.t selectivity estimation and index selection. > > Yeah, this is surely not a workable policy unless we first move all > those planner smarts to apply to functions not operators. And rewrite > all the index AM APIs to use functions not operators, too. Now this is > something that's been a wish-list item right along, but actually doing > it has always looked like a great deal of work for rather small reward.
Hmm. Well, if the operators are going to be indexable, then I agree that's an issue, but isn't -> just a key-extraction operator? That wouldn't be something you could index anyway. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
