From: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 23:32:48 |
Message-ID: | 20100529233248.GA3615@fetter.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 06:11:57PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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?
Because there's a fundamentally new way to use them now, namely with
exclusion constraints :)
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Selena Deckelmann | 2010-05-30 00:37:59 | Re: Regression testing for psql |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-05-29 22:11:57 | Re: small exclusion constraints patch |