2009/7/15 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> There is no reason at all to avoid an index AM API change if one is
> useful.
Thinking about this a bit more, perhaps it would be better if I added
an out parameter to the AM for the uniqueness result, rather than
overloading the return value, which is quite ugly:
bool
index_insert(Relation indexRelation,
Datum *values,
bool *isnull,
ItemPointer heap_t_ctid,
Relation heapRelation,
IndexUniqueCheck uniqueness_check,
bool *is_unique);
This would allow me to tidy up some of the code I added to
ExecInsertIndexTuples() which is a bit of a kludge to support
the hash indexes enforcing uniqueness in the future:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-07/msg00812.php
Also I could then move the ereport() for unique key violations from
_bt_check_unique() into index_insert() which would allow the
Duplicate key value error patch to be non-btree-specific:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20090403161658.afb2.52131...@oss.ntt.co.jp
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/24655.1238885...@sss.pgh.pa.us
Thoughts?
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
