On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.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?
> Done, with attached, applied patch.

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).

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to