On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 2:07 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Yes, I'm very well aware of that optimization. While it's certainly > a hack, it fits within a design that isn't a hack, ie that there are > common, well-defined cases where we can skip the table rewrite. > However, for the reasons I explained before, there are no general-purpose > cases where we can skip an index build on a type-changed column, so > there is no place to insert a similar hack for the timestamp[tz] case.
Wouldn't the hack just go into CheckIndexCompatible()? You seemed to think my previous comments about comparing opfamilies were hypothetical but I think we actually already have the optimization Peter wants, and it just doesn't apply in this case for lack of hacks. Maybe I am missing something. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
