Paul Ramsey pram...@cleverelephant.ca writes:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Paul Ramsey pram...@cleverelephant.ca
wrote:
Is it possible to make custom types hashable? There's no hook in the
CREATE TYPE call for a hash
On July 8, 2015 at 1:36:49 PM, Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
Paul Ramsey pram...@cleverelephant.ca writes:
UNION will preferentially glom onto the btree equality operator, if memory
serves. If that isn't also the hash equality operator, things won't work
pleasantly.
So… what
Paul Ramsey pram...@cleverelephant.ca writes:
UNION will preferentially glom onto the btree equality operator, if memory
serves. If that isn't also the hash equality operator, things won't work
pleasantly.
So⦠what does that mean for types that have both btree and hash equality
It still says I lack the secret sauce...
ERROR: could not implement recursive UNION
DETAIL: All column datatypes must be hashable.
UNION will preferentially glom onto the btree equality operator, if memory
serves. If that isn't also the hash equality operator, things won't work
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Paul Ramsey pram...@cleverelephant.ca
wrote:
Is it possible to make custom types hashable? There's no hook in the
CREATE TYPE call for a hash function, but can one be hooked up
somewhere
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 04:47:49PM -0700, Paul Ramsey wrote:
When trying to write a recursive CTE using the PostGIS geometry type,
I was told this:
ERROR: could not implement recursive UNION
DETAIL: All column datatypes must be hashable.
This leads to an interesting question, which is why
David Fetter da...@fetter.org writes:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 04:47:49PM -0700, Paul Ramsey wrote:
ERROR: could not implement recursive UNION
DETAIL: All column datatypes must be hashable.
This leads to an interesting question, which is why does our
implementation require this. I'm
The plain UNION code supports either sorting or hashing, but
we've not gotten around to supporting a sort-based approach
to recursive UNION. I'm not convinced that it's worth doing ...
regards, tom lane
Without sorting, isnt the scope of a recursive UNION with
On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Atri Sharma atri.j...@gmail.com wrote:
Without sorting, isnt the scope of a recursive UNION with custom datatypes
pretty restrictive?
All the default data types are hashable. It's not hard to add a hash
operator class. In a clean slate design it would probably
Greg Stark st...@mit.edu writes:
On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Atri Sharma atri.j...@gmail.com wrote:
Without sorting, isnt the scope of a recursive UNION with custom datatypes
pretty restrictive?
All the default data types are hashable. It's not hard to add a hash
operator class. In a
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Paul Ramsey pram...@cleverelephant.ca wrote:
Is it possible to make custom types hashable? There's no hook in the
CREATE TYPE call for a hash function, but can one be hooked up
somewhere else? In an operator?
See 35.14.6., System Dependencies on Operator
11 matches
Mail list logo
