On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 07:38:36PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> writes:
> > The issue is whether anything you want to ORDER BY needs to be
> > described by an B-tree operator class, and hence have a real sort
> > function.
>
> I think it's reasonable to remove that feature, *after* we provide
> a workable substitute. So, "no" to both questions ...
Hmm. By feature I assume you mean "ORDER BY ... USING" (which no-one
could find an example of) and not "requiring the operator to be part of
an opclass".
The only people affected would be people who defined a less-than
operator but no operator class, which you said yourself would probably
just be encouraging programmer lazyness. I wasn't suggesting removing
the ORDER BY ... USING syntax, just these two options from the sorting
routines.
In fact, I don't think we ever need to remove the syntax, just as long
as the operator is part of an operator class, it'll be fine.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a
> tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone
> else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.