Alexander Korotkov wrote: > 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 we shouldn't do this during this GSoC. What > particular shortcomings do you see in explicit cast in RI triggers queries?
I'm probably confused. Why did we add an operator and not a support procedure? I think we should have added rows in pg_amproc, not pg_amproc. I'm very tired right now so I may be speaking nonsense. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
