On 2021-Mar-22, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> I don't know what's the right fix, but it seems like this patch has
> nothing to do with it. If we want to move the opclasses into an
> extension, we can comment out that one (cidr/inet) case for now.
I don't know what would be a good reason to define the opclasses in
separate contrib extensions. I think it's going to be a nuisance to
users, so unless there is some strong argument for it, I'd suggest not
to do it. I found it being discussed here:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoajaQKBUx%3DvaTUFo6z80dsRzBw__Nu41Q4t06baZep3Ug%40mail.gmail.com
but there weren't any strong arguments put forward.
It seems a good experiment to have done it, though, since we now know
that there is a limitation in the existing SQL interface. Maybe the fix
to that problem is to add a new clause to CREATE/ALTER OPERATOR CLASS to
let you define what goes into opckeytype. However I don't think it's
this patch's responsibility to fix that problem.
--
Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile
"Hay que recordar que la existencia en el cosmos, y particularmente la
elaboración de civilizaciones dentro de él no son, por desgracia,
nada idílicas" (Ijon Tichy)
