Re: [HACKERS] Tightening selection of default sort/group operators

2002-11-29 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] Tightening selection of default sort/group operators

2002-11-29 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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