Re: clearing opfuncid vs. parallel query - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: clearing opfuncid vs. parallel query
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmoah+Oy_VmXAutBe+rHA8aQTDXtdXK4A-Nk+Xb3qrakvFw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: clearing opfuncid vs. parallel query  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: clearing opfuncid vs. parallel query  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> But if we're sure we don't want to support that, changing the behavior
>> of the read routines would be fine with me, too.  It would even save a
>> few cycles.  Would you also want to rip out the stuff that fixes up
>> opfuncid as dead code?  I assume yes, but sometimes I assume things
>> that are false.
>
> Yeah, though I think of that as a longer-term issue, ie we could clean it
> up sometime later.

So, you're thinking of something as simple as the attached?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Calculage avg. width when operator = is missing
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: clearing opfuncid vs. parallel query