Wait a second, how can you do that? Doesn't that violate
pg_amop_opc_strategy_index ?
It sure does, but running the script shows that the second insert
doesn't try to insert any rows. There's no entry in the temp table
for ~~ because its left and right operands are not the types the
On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
Bill Studenmund [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[ revised proposal for CREATE OPERATOR CLASS syntax ]
I don't like the idea of writing a bunch of consecutive commas (and
having to count them correctly) for cases where we're inserting
noncontigous
On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, Teodor Sigaev wrote:
Make me right if I mistake.
When we was developing operator @@, I saw that postgres don't use index in
select if operation has not commutator. But operator with different types in
argument can't be commutator with itself. So I maked operator ~~ only
I'd like to propose a new command, CREATE OPERATOR CLASS. Its purpose is
to create a named operator class, so that you can create new types of
index ops. Also, its inclusion would remove the section of the
documentation where we tell people how to manually manipulate the system
tables.
Since
On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Bill Studenmund wrote:
Here's the syntax I'd like to propose:
CREATE OPERATOR CLASS name [DEFAULT] FOR TYPE typename USING access
method WITH list of operators AND list of support functions
Hmmm.. Teach me to read the docs. :-) There's no way to set opckeytype. So
hwo
On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
Bill Studenmund [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd like to propose a new command, CREATE OPERATOR CLASS.
Seems like a good idea.
operator spec is either an operator or an operator followed by the keyword
REPEATABLE. The presence of REPEATABLE indicates
Bill Studenmund [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd like to propose a new command, CREATE OPERATOR CLASS.
Seems like a good idea.
operator spec is either an operator or an operator followed by the keyword
REPEATABLE. The presence of REPEATABLE indicates that amopreqcheck
should be set to true for
Bill Studenmund [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[ revised proposal for CREATE OPERATOR CLASS syntax ]
I don't like the idea of writing a bunch of consecutive commas (and
having to count them correctly) for cases where we're inserting
noncontigous amopstrategy or amprocnum numbers. Perhaps the syntax
Bill Studenmund [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do any of the access methods really support using non-binary operators?
Whether they do today is not the question. The issue is whether they
could --- and they certainly could.
Oh gross. I just looked at contrib/intarray, and it defines two entries
