| From: | Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: UNIQUE null treatment option |
| Date: | 2022-01-13 19:01:49 |
| Message-ID: | CALT9ZEGAi4Sn_qvCVrdYAtZA=9uwAOXv2ft9R-iBJ2abRS7uew@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> 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.
>
A good point, indeed!
--
Best regards,
Pavel Borisov
Postgres Professional: http://postgrespro.com <http://www.postgrespro.com>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2022-01-13 19:06:42 | Re: Adding CI to our tree |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-01-13 18:55:27 | Re: Adding CI to our tree |