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 (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers