Tom Lane wrote:
> Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru> writes:
>> RECHECK flag could be removed.
>
> Hmm, that's slightly more radical than I was considering, but it would
> simplify matters wouldn't it? The only strong argument against it that
> I can think of is that it'd break user-defined opclasses ... but it's
> not like we don't change the API for GIST/GIN support functions from
> time to time anyway.
Don't we need to change the GiST/GIN support function interface anyway,
to be able to return the "recheck" flag?
> If we do this, should we remove RECHECK from the CREATE OPERATOR CLASS
> syntax altogether, or leave it in but treat it as a no-op (probably
> with a warning)? The latter would make it a shade easier to load
> existing dumps, but I'm inclined to think if we're going to break
> something it'd be better to break it obviously than subtly.
I agree with rather breaking it obviously than subtly.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
