Enrique MailingLists <enrique.mailing.li...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers