On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:06 PM Oleg Bartunov <obartu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 6:17 AM, M Enrique <
> enrique.mailing.li...@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).
> Look on https://commitfest.postgresql.org/4/145/
>> [image: pasted1]
>> Thank you,
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 12:20 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> 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
>>> > support as a default for UUIDs.
>>> This makes me itch, really, because if we do this then we should
>>> 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
>>> entirely sure, but possibly replacing the core opclasses with a single
>>> that is "default for anyarray" could avoid such failures. We'd have to
>>> figure out ambiguity resolution rules.
>>> regards, tom lane