Enrique MailingLists <enrique.mailing.lists@gmail.com> writes:
> Currently creating an index on an array of UUID involves defining an
> operator class. I was wondering if this would be a valid request to add as
> part of the uuid-ossp extension? This seems like a reasonable operator to
> support as a default for UUIDs.
This makes me itch, really, because if we do this then we should logically
do it for every other add-on type.
It seems like we are not that far from being able to have just one GIN
opclass on "anyarray". The only parts of this declaration that are
UUID-specific are the comparator function and the storage type, both of
which could be gotten without that much trouble, one would think.
> Any downsides to adding this as a default?
Well, it'd likely break things at dump/reload time for people who had
already created a competing "default for _uuid" opclass manually. I'm not
entirely sure, but possibly replacing the core opclasses with a single one
that is "default for anyarray" could avoid such failures. We'd have to
figure out ambiguity resolution rules.
regards, tom lane