| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: operator exclusion constraints |
| Date: | 2009-12-02 13:01:58 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070912020501o54c342d6s26e01b379b5248ee@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 12:18 AM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 23:19 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> For parity with unique constraints, I think that the message:
>>
>> operator exclusion constraint violation detected: %s
>>
>> should be changed to:
>>
>> conflicting key value violates operator exclusion constraint "%s"
>
> Done, and updated tests.
>
>> In ATAddOperatorExclusionConstraint, "streatagy" is misspelled.
>
> Fixed.
>
>> Other than that, it looks good to me.
>
> Great, thanks for the detailed review!
Marked as Ready for Committer.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-12-02 13:17:41 | Re: Cost of sort/order by not estimated by the query planner |
| Previous Message | Laurent Laborde | 2009-12-02 13:01:55 | Re: Cost of sort/order by not estimated by the query planner |