Re: pg_dump versus views and opclasses - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: pg_dump versus views and opclasses
Date
Msg-id 12510.1232208314@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_dump versus views and opclasses  ("Brendan Jurd" <direvus@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Brendan Jurd" <direvus@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 2:52 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Is there a hash opclass for the type?  8.4 can group types that have
>> hash but not btree opclasses, but prior versions insisted on btree.

> Well I sure didn't create one.  I've only been attempting to create a
> btree opclass.  Is there some kind of default hash opclass for
> composites?

No ... but after poking around in the system catalogs I notice there
*is* a default btree opclass for composites, as of 8.4 ...
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Brendan Jurd"
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump versus views and opclasses
Next
From: "Brendan Jurd"
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump versus views and opclasses