On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 4:25 PM Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: > I think that that's probably not desirable. There should at least be a > strong practical advantage if we go that way. This would mean ALTER > OPERATOR CLASS could change the "substance" of an opclass, which is > fundamentally different from what it can do already (it currently just > changes the owner, or the schema that it is stored in).
My impression is that this is more of an implementation restriction than a design goal. I don't really remember the details, but it seems to me that there were locking and/or cache invalidation problems with making ALTER OPERATOR CLASS do more substantive things -- and that it was because of those problems, not a lack of desire, that we didn't support it. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
