> No, there's no need for that. It means that the RI stuff would have to
> take whatever steps we agree on to determine the exact comparison
> operator to use, and then be sure to emit SQL that will select exactly
> that operator --- this involves using the OPERATOR(foo.=) syntax to
> remove schema-ambiguity and possibly adding explicit type coercions of
> the operands. This'll make the RI queries noticeably uglier, but
> they're not meant to be read by humans anyway. I think it wouldn't be
> any slower, because OPERATOR() syntax will suppress a search-path
> search that the parser would otherwise make for the operator --- but
> in any case, since the plan result is cached, a few microseconds here or
> there won't matter.
Incidentally, shouldn't the existing RI queries (eg. SELECT ... FOR
SHARE) explicity specify operator(pg_catalog.=)? Or are they safe from
that for some other reason?
Chris