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

Re: small exclusion constraints patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: small exclusion constraints patch
Date: 2010-05-21 19:24:35
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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?

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: David FetterDate: 2010-05-21 19:36:50
Subject: Re: Specification for Trusted PLs?
Previous:From: Greg Sabino MullaneDate: 2010-05-21 19:22:00
Subject: Re: changed source files.

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