Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> I still feel vaguely uneasy about the fact that the proposed patch
> can't handle ASC/DESC or NULLS FIRST/LAST, and that unease grew a bit
> more last night when I read Peter's patch to add collation support.
Good point.
> We could possibly cram ASC/DESC and NULLS FIRST/LAST in by defining
> four new categories of operator strategies rather than one, but
> there's no way that's going to work for collations. Is there some
> other way to approach this problem? Can we leave pg_amop as it is,
> and pass the context (sort vs. qual, ASC/DESC, NULLS FIRST/LAST,
> collation, whatever...) to the index via some sort of side channel?
Well, we cannot avoid changing pg_amop, or at least changing its
interpretation, because the current scheme simply can't represent
indexable operators that are used for anything except simple boolean
WHERE tests. I agree though that we do *not* want pg_amop involved
in the details of exactly what sort ordering is referenced by a sortable
operator. Somehow that needs to be passed in a side channel.
Maybe we should think in terms of a side channel for Peter's patch
as well. I share your feeling that trying to propagate collation
the same way we now propagate typmod is a recipe for serious pain.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
