|From:||Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>|
|To:||Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(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|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 23:13 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> Forgive me if this is discussed before, but why does this store the
> strategy numbers of the relevant operators instead of the operators
> themselves? It seems like this could lead to surprising behavior if
> the user modifies the definition of the operator class.
> I'm wondering if we can't use the existing
> BuildIndexValueDescription() rather than the new function
> tuple_as_string(). I realize there are two tuples, but maybe it makes
> sense to just call it twice?
> I'm attaching a revised doc patch for your consideration.
Thanks, I applied it. The only significant thing I changed was that I
did not inline the "index_elem" because it made it fairly hard to read.
Instead, I renamed it "exclude_elem" to make it a little more
meaningful, which I assume may have been your motivation for inlining
Changes this patch:
* doc changes
* changed constraint violation message to be more like btree unique
* improved error message when an operator is specified that doesn't
have a search strategy
* represent operator IDs in catalog, rather than strategy numbers
* if someone thinks it's an issue, support search strategies that
require binary-incompatible casts of the inputs
|Next Message||Robert Haas||2009-11-26 11:29:10||Re: cvs chapters in our docs|
|Previous Message||Roger Leigh||2009-11-26 09:08:37||Re: garbage in psql -l|