Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> I guess the "correct" solution would be to extend ALTER OPERATOR. I
> wonder why it's not supported - it's clearly an intentional decision
> (per comment in AlterOperator). So what might break if this changes for
> an existing operator?
This code was added by commit 321eed5f0. The thread leading up to
that commit is here:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/3348985.V7xMLFDaJO%40dinodell
There are some nontrivial concerns in there about breaking the
semantics of existing exclusion constraints, for instance. I think
we mostly rejected the concern about invalidation of cached plans
as already-covered, but that wasn't the only problem.
However, I think we could largely ignore the issues if we restricted
ALTER OPERATOR to only add commutator, negator, hashes, or merges
properties to operators that lacked them before --- which'd be the
primary if not only use-case anyway. That direction can't break
anything.
regards, tom lane
