Gavin Flower <GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz> writes:
> On 09/05/14 15:34, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Looks good. I was thinking the jsonb_ops name could remain unchanged
>> and the jsonb_hash_ops could be called jsonb_combo_ops as it combines
>> the key and value into a single index entry.
> If you have 'jsonb_combo_ops' - then surely 'jsonb_op' should be called
> 'jsonb_xxx_ops', where the 'xxx' distinguishes that from
> 'jsonb_combo_ops'? I guess, if any appropriate wording of 'xxx' was too
> cumbersome, then it would be worse.
Yeah, I'm disinclined to change the opclass names now. It's not apparent
to me that "combo" is a better choice than "hash" for the second opclass.
regards, tom lane
