Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> However, what it *is* associated with is a sort ordering, and the notion
> that btree opclasses are what define orderings is sufficiently deeply
> wired into the system that undoing it would be a huge PITA. So unless
> we can see a pretty clear future need for more information in this
> category, I'm not really inclined to invent some new structure
> altogether. I'm just wondering if anyone does see that...
I think there's the associativity property of operators that we might
want to have someday, in order for the planner to know some more about
joins on A = B then on B = C, or replace with < if you will.
Regards,
--
dim