Kris Jurka <books@ejurka.com> writes:
> In the function case the indexed data is not the column data, so putting
> the column's name is misleading.
There's another argument here, which is that the JDBC spec (presumably)
says that that field is a column name, full stop. Now an app that's
using functional indexes is already outside the spec, so returning
something that's not just a name seems acceptable in that case, and
arguably it's the proper name for the index's data anyway. But cramming
an opclass name in there seems to me to violate the spirit of the spec.
regards, tom lane