Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> The problem is that you need to have not only opclass entries for the
> operators, but also operators themselves. I.e. separate operators for
> int4[] @>> int8, int4[] @>> int4, int4[] @>> int2, int4[] @>> numeric. You
> tried to add multiple pg_amop rows for single operator and consequently get
> unique index violation.
>
> Alvaro, do you think we need to define all these operators? I'm not sure.
> If even we need it, I think we shouldn't do this during this GSoC. What
> particular shortcomings do you see in explicit cast in RI triggers queries?
I'm probably confused. Why did we add an operator and not a support
procedure? I think we should have added rows in pg_amproc, not
pg_amproc. I'm very tired right now so I may be speaking nonsense.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
