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 :)

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

Reply via email to