Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I haven't thought about this too deeply, but could we allow the "with
> =" part to be optional? And would it be a good idea?
I don't think so. We generally do not believe in defaulting operators
based on name. If there were a way to select the "standard" exclusion
operator based on opclass membership it might make sense, but almost by
definition this facility is going to be working with unusual opclasses
that might not even have an equality slot.
regards, tom lane