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

Re: small exclusion constraints patch

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: small exclusion constraints patch
Date: 2010-05-29 02:32:26
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> > Currently, the check for exclusion constraints performs a sanity check
> > that's slightly too strict -- it assumes that a tuple will conflict with
> > itself. That is not always the case: the operator might be "<>", in
> > which case it's perfectly valid for the search for conflicts to not find
> > itself.
> > This patch simply removes that sanity check, and leaves a comment in
> > place.
> I'm a bit uncomfortable with removing the sanity check; it seems like a
> good thing to have, especially since this code hasn't even made it out
> of beta yet.  AFAIK the "<>" case is purely hypothetical, because we
> have no index opclasses supporting such an operator, no?  How about just
> documenting that we'd need to remove the sanity check if we ever did add
> support for such a case?

Done, with attached, applied patch.

  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>

Attachment: /rtmp/diff
Description: text/x-diff (908 bytes)

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Fujii MasaoDate: 2010-05-29 03:11:59
Subject: Re: Failback with log shipping
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-05-29 01:07:51
Subject: Re: Exposing the Xact commit order to the user

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group