On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 06:11:57PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > The only disadvantage I see of just documenting this is that
> > someone might write a user-defined index opclass that works like
> > this, and they won't be able to use this until at least 9.1 (or at
> > least, not without patching the source).
> I don't actually think that anyone's very likely to write a <>-like
> index operator. It's approximately useless to use an index for such
> a query.
> Or, to put it differently: if nobody's done that in the past twenty
> years, why is it likely to happen before 9.1?
Because there's a fundamentally new way to use them now, namely with
exclusion constraints :)
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Selena Deckelmann||Date: 2010-05-30 00:37:59|
|Subject: Re: Regression testing for psql|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-05-29 22:11:57|
|Subject: Re: small exclusion constraints patch |