Re: Removing SORTFUNC_LT/REVLT

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.

> 1. Do people have any problems with this?
> 2. Would a patch for this be accepted seperate from the whole collation
> stuff?

I think it's reasonable to remove that feature, *after* we provide
a workable substitute.  So, "no" to both questions ...
        regards, tom lane