Re: small exclusion constraints patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: 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 22:11:57
Message-ID: 25064.1275171117@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Fetter 2010-05-29 23:32:48 Re: small exclusion constraints patch
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-05-29 21:58:21 Re: PG 9.0 release timetable