Re: [HACKERS] Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation - Mailing list pgsql-docs

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation
Date
Msg-id CAM3SWZRAxisGCdODhbgeiNL6tayqL18XMzun4W3xesASmKfwDA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-docs
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> (BTW, wasn't there some discussion of changing our minds about which
> one is the default?  We already have one bug report complaining about
> jsonb_ops' size restriction, so that seems to be evidence in favor
> of changing ...)

Yes, there was. I very nearly came down on the side of making
jsonb_hash_ops the default, but given that it doesn't make all
operators indexable, I ultimately decided against supporting that
course of action. I thought that that would be an odd limitation for
the default GIN opclass to have. It was a very close call in my mind,
and if you favor changing the default now, in light of the few
complaints we've heard, I think that's a reasonable decision. That
said, as I noted in the main -bugs thread, the case presented is
fairly atypical.


--
Peter Geoghegan


pgsql-docs by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation