Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> I wonder why we don't support more operators on Xid, so these things are
> avoided? Right now we only have =, AFAIR.
I once started to make a btree opclass for XID, and stopped when it
occurred to me that XID comparison doesn't obey the transitive law.
btree won't like that...
regards, tom lane