On 17.11.23 19:39, Paul Jungwirth wrote:
> But I feel the overall approach is wrong: originally I used hardcoded
> "=" and "&&" operators, and you asked me to look them up by strategy
> number instead. But that leads to trouble with core gist types vs
> btree_gist types. The core gist opclasses use RT*StrategyNumbers, but
> btree_gist creates opclasses with BT*StrategyNumbers.
Ouch.
That also provides the answer to my question #2 here:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6f010a6e-8e20-658b-dc05-dc9033a694da%40eisentraut.org
I don't have a good idea about this right now. Could we just change
btree_gist perhaps? Do we need a new API for this somewhere?
