Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My first thought is that this seems to be an awefully backwards way to
> define operator semantic metadata.
Why? The property we are interested in is that two operators '<' and
'=' will work for grouping --- ie, if you order by '<' and then combine
a
Tom Lane writes:
> What I'm thinking of doing instead is always looking up the "=" operator
> by name, and accepting this as actually being equality if it is marked
> mergejoinable or hashjoinable or has eqsel() as its restriction
> selectivity estimator (oprrest). If we are looking for a "<" ope
I noticed that the system is really pretty shaky about how it chooses
the datatype-specific operators to implement sorting and grouping.
In the GROUP BY case, for example, the parser looks up an operator
named '<' for the column datatype, and then sometime later the executor
looks up an operator na
