Re: Operator families vs. casts

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Operator families vs. casts
Date: 2011-05-24 14:10:34
Message-ID: 5647.1306246234@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> writes:
> PostgreSQL 9.1 will implement ALTER TABLE ALTER TYPE operations that use a
> binary coercion cast without rewriting the table or unrelated indexes. It
> will always rewrite any indexes and recheck any foreign key constraints that
> depend on a changing column. This is unnecessary for 100% of core binary
> coercion casts. In my original design[1], I planned to detect this by
> comparing the operator families of the old and would-be-new indexes. (This
> still yields some unnecessary rewrites; oid_ops and int4_ops are actually
> compatible, for example.)

No, they aren't: signed and unsigned comparisons do not yield the same
sort order. I think that example may destroy the rest of your argument.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2011-05-24 14:26:59 Re: Operator families vs. casts
Previous Message Noah Misch 2011-05-24 14:03:04 Re: Reducing overhead of frequent table locks