Re: Foreign keys for non-default datatypes

On Fri, 3 Mar 2006, Tom Lane wrote:

> The reason I'm hesitant to add a bunch more cross-type operators is
> mainly that we have too darn many operators named "=" already.  I've
> seen in recent profiling tests that it's taking the parser a noticeable
> amount of time to decide which one is meant.  So I don't want to add a
> lot more without a fairly credible use-case, and right now this doesn't
> look like one to me.

Honestly, as long as we *could* reasonably add one, I don't have a
complaint, because we aren't taking a step that involves a huge amount of
work if we get a complaint or separately decide to be more compliant on
this.