On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 at 7:43 pm, Alexander Korotkov <aekorot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On T upue, Jul 18, 2017 at 2:24 AM, Mark Rofail <markm.rof...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Alvaro Herrera < >> alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> >>> We have one opclass for each type combination -- int4 to int2, int4 to >>> int4, int4 to int8, etc. You just need to add the new strategy to all >>> the opclasses. >> >> >> I tried this approach by manually declaring the operator multiple of >> times in pg_amop.h (src/include/catalog/pg_amop.h) >> >> so instead of the polymorphic declaration >> DATA(insert ( 2745 2277 2283 5 s 6108 2742 0 )); /* anyarray @>> >> anyelem */ >> >> multiple declarations were used, for example for int4[] : >> DATA(insert ( 2745 1007 20 5 s 6108 2742 0 )); /* int4[] @>> int8 */ >> DATA(insert ( 2745 1007 23 5 s 6108 2742 0 )); /* int4[] @>> int4 */ >> DATA(insert ( 2745 1007 21 5 s 6108 2742 0 )); /* int4[] @>> int2 */ >> DATA(insert ( 2745 1007 1700 5 s 6108 2742 0 ));/* int4[] @>> numeric >> */ >> >> However, make check produced: >> could not create unique index "pg_amop_opr_fam_index" >> Key (amopopr, amoppurpose, amopfamily)=(6108, s, 2745) is duplicated. >> >> Am I implementing this the wrong way or do we need to look for another >> approach? >> > > The problem is that you need to have not only opclass entries for the > operators, but also operators themselves. I.e. separate operators for > int4[] @>> int8, int4[] @>> int4, int4[] @>> int2, int4[] @>> numeric. You > tried to add multiple pg_amop rows for single operator and consequently get > unique index violation. > > Alvaro, do you think we need to define all these operators? I'm not > sure. If even we need it, I think > ------ > Alexander Korotkov > Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com > The Russian Postgres Company >
