Martijn van Oosterhout Wrote: > > > All we lose is the ability to say USING [arbitrary op]. Does anybody > > > use this. Would people object to requiring the operator after USING > > > to be part of an operator class? > > > > Hmmm ... would this prevent the hackish workaround for case-insensitive sort? > > Err, which hackish workaround would that be? The right > solution is citext which creates it's own operator class. > This doesn't have anything to do with functional indexes either. > > I've been using Google to find any interesting use of the > USING clause but havn't found any yet.
I was actually of the impression that that was exacty what it was for: specifying what op(class) to use for the sort in case you wanted to use a non-default opclass for the type, and/or if the less-than operator wasn't called '<'. ... John ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match