Re: UNIQUE null treatment option

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: UNIQUE null treatment option
Date: 2022-01-13 18:47:09
Message-ID: CAH2-Wzm+LwPHX=pB7i6PoTrQi=C_WbF-6yNYqrotX5mSc7s4nQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 10:36 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> I wonder if the logic for setting BTScanInsertData.anynullkeys inside
> _bt_mkscankey() is the place to put your test for
> rel->rd_index->indnullsnotdistinct -- not inside _bt_doinsert(). That
> would probably necessitate renaming anynullkeys, but that's okay. This
> feels more natural to me because a NULL key column in a NULLS NOT
> DISTINCT unique constraint is very similar to a NULL non-key column in
> an INCLUDE index, as far as our requirements go -- and so both cases
> should probably be dealt with at the same point.

Correction: I meant to write "...a NULL key column in a NULLS DISTINCT
unique constraint is very similar...".

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2022-01-13 18:55:27 Re: Adding CI to our tree
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2022-01-13 18:36:45 Re: UNIQUE null treatment option