On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 2:24 AM, Mark Rofail <markm.rof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com > > wrote: >> >> We have one opclass for each type combination -- int4 to int2, int4 to >> int4, int4 to int8, etc. You just need to add the new strategy to all >> the opclasses. > > > I tried this approach by manually declaring the operator multiple of > times in pg_amop.h (src/include/catalog/pg_amop.h) > > so instead of the polymorphic declaration > DATA(insert ( 2745 2277 2283 5 s 6108 2742 0 )); /* anyarray @>> > anyelem */ > > multiple declarations were used, for example for int4[] : > DATA(insert ( 2745 1007 20 5 s 6108 2742 0 )); /* int4[] @>> int8 */ > DATA(insert ( 2745 1007 23 5 s 6108 2742 0 )); /* int4[] @>> int4 */ > DATA(insert ( 2745 1007 21 5 s 6108 2742 0 )); /* int4[] @>> int2 */ > DATA(insert ( 2745 1007 1700 5 s 6108 2742 0 ));/* int4[] @>> numeric */ > > However, make check produced: > could not create unique index "pg_amop_opr_fam_index" > Key (amopopr, amoppurpose, amopfamily)=(6108, s, 2745) is duplicated. > > Am I implementing this the wrong way or do we need to look for another > approach? > The problem is that you need to have not only opclass entries for the operators, but also operators themselves. I.e. separate operators for int4[] @>> int8, int4[] @>> int4, int4[] @>> int2, int4[] @>> numeric. You tried to add multiple pg_amop rows for single operator and consequently get unique index violation. Alvaro, do you think we need to define all these operators? I'm not sure. If even we need it, I think we shouldn't do this during this GSoC. What particular shortcomings do you see in explicit cast in RI triggers queries? ------ Alexander Korotkov Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company
