Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: small exclusion constraints patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: small exclusion constraints patch
Date: 2010-05-29 22:11:57
Message-ID: 25064.1275171117@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: David FetterDate: 2010-05-29 23:32:48
Subject: Re: small exclusion constraints patch
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-05-29 21:58:21
Subject: Re: PG 9.0 release timetable

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group