On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 06:11:57PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > 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). > > I don't actually think that anyone's very likely to write a <>-like > index operator. It's approximately useless to use an index for such > a query. > > Or, to put it differently: if nobody's done that in the past twenty > years, why is it likely to happen before 9.1?
Because there's a fundamentally new way to use them now, namely with exclusion constraints :) Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers