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

Re: small exclusion constraints patch

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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 :)

David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
iCal: webcal://

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres:

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Selena DeckelmannDate: 2010-05-30 00:37:59
Subject: Re: Regression testing for psql
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-05-29 22:11:57
Subject: Re: small exclusion constraints patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group