Re: Extra check in 9.0 exclusion constraint unintended consequences

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Abel Abraham Camarillo Ojeda <acamari(at)verlet(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Extra check in 9.0 exclusion constraint unintended consequences
Date: 2011-07-10 19:29:32
Message-ID: 1310326172.3012.243.camel@jdavis
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, 2011-07-10 at 00:36 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Is this really a good idea? I think the note should still be there in
> 9.1 and beyond (with the version applicability note of course)

I see your point, but it also seems strange to keep such a note
permanently. And it also seems minor enough that we don't want it to be
another thing to keep track of.

I don't really have a strong opinion here. People might hit in in 9.0,
but there's a workaround. And they won't hit it in 9.1+.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Brar Piening 2011-07-10 19:46:33 Re: Review of VS 2010 support patches
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2011-07-10 18:59:05 Re: Full GUID support