Re: pg_dump versus views and opclasses - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Brendan Jurd
Subject Re: pg_dump versus views and opclasses
Date
Msg-id 37ed240d0901170756i2c2e673cpb68df9326f948c98@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_dump versus views and opclasses  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: pg_dump versus views and opclasses  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 2:52 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> "Brendan Jurd" <direvus@gmail.com> writes:
>> Update.  Turns out that 8.4 DOES know how to execute the view.  If you
>> try to group on a user-defined composite type, 8.4 just goes ahead and
>> groups it, rather than giving the old "could not identify an ordering
>> operator" error.
>
> Is there a hash opclass for the type?  8.4 can group types that have
> hash but not btree opclasses, but prior versions insisted on btree.

Well I sure didn't create one.  I've only been attempting to create a
btree opclass.  Is there some kind of default hash opclass for
composites?

Cheers,
BJ


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump versus views and opclasses
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump versus views and opclasses