Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
Date
Msg-id 15736.1587419419@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> There's one with a separate column for the operator, without types, at
> the left (the "with names" example at
> https://postgr.es/m/14380.1587242177@sss.pgh.pa.us ).  That seemed
> pretty promising -- not sure why it was discarded.

Well, I wouldn't say it was discarded --- but there sure wasn't
a groundswell of support.

Looking at it again, I'd be inclined not to bother with the
morerows trick but just to have an operator name entry in each row.
This table is a bit of an outlier anyway, I'm finding --- very few
of the operator tables have multiple entries per operator name.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: new heapcheck contrib module
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?