Martijn van Oosterhout Wrote:
> > > All we lose is the ability to say USING [arbitrary op]. Does
anybody
> > > use this. Would people object to requiring the operator after
USING
> > > to be part of an operator class?
> >
> > Hmmm ... would this prevent the hackish workaround for
case-insensitive sort?
>
> Err, which hackish workaround would that be? The right
> solution is citext which creates it's own operator class.
> This doesn't have anything to do with functional indexes either.
>
> I've been using Google to find any interesting use of the
> USING clause but havn't found any yet.
I was actually of the impression that that was exacty what it was for:
specifying what op(class) to use for the sort in case you wanted to use
a non-default opclass for the type, and/or if the less-than operator
wasn't called '<'.
... John