On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 9:16 PM, David G. Johnston > <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Brute force: you'd have to query pg_amop and note the absence of a row > with > > a btree (maybe hash too...) family strategy 3 (1 for hash) [equality] > where > > the left and right types are the same and match the type in question. > > The core system uses this kind of thing to find equality operators in > a number of cases. > > We often assume that the operator which implements equality for the > type's default btree operator class is the canonical one for some > purpose. Ditto for the default hash operator class. > Yeah, the user-facing documentation covers it pretty deeply if not in one central location. But apparently the core system also uses the fact that "=", if present, is an equality operator and, less so, that no other operator is expected to be used for equality. I suspect that such an expectation is not enforced though - e.g., someone could define "==" to mean equality if they so choose (the lesser property). Its hard to imagine defining "=" to mean something different in logic, though, without intentionally trying to be cryptic. David J.
