From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: small exclusion constraints patch |
Date: | 2010-05-29 02:32:26 |
Message-ID: | 201005290232.o4T2WQP10963@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> > Currently, the check for exclusion constraints performs a sanity check
> > that's slightly too strict -- it assumes that a tuple will conflict with
> > itself. That is not always the case: the operator might be "<>", in
> > which case it's perfectly valid for the search for conflicts to not find
> > itself.
>
> > This patch simply removes that sanity check, and leaves a comment in
> > place.
>
> I'm a bit uncomfortable with removing the sanity check; it seems like a
> good thing to have, especially since this code hasn't even made it out
> of beta yet. AFAIK the "<>" case is purely hypothetical, because we
> have no index opclasses supporting such an operator, no? How about just
> documenting that we'd need to remove the sanity check if we ever did add
> support for such a case?
Done, with attached, applied patch.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
/rtmp/diff | text/x-diff | 908 bytes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2010-05-29 03:11:59 | Re: Failback with log shipping |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-05-29 01:07:51 | Re: Exposing the Xact commit order to the user |