On 2005-12-29, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, no, that's not the problem: the problem is that you should be able > to specify ORDER BY any sort ordering that the system can deal with, and > the USING syntax is in fact too impoverished to do that. What if the > mentioned operator is in more than one operator class? I believe that > ATM the code makes a random choice of which opclass' sort function to > use, which pretty much sucks.
Does it matter? How would the same operator specify different orderings in different operator classes, given that it must be a strict weak ordering for sorting to even work, and such an ordering is completely determined by either one of its greater-than/less-than operators? -- Andrew, Supernews http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
