On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 1:19 AM, Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: > Thank you for the review. > > On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 17:17 +0900, Itagaki Takahiro wrote: >> (1) Exclusion constraints support for operators where "x <operator> x" >> is false (tiny patch) >> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=307 >> (2) btree_gist support for searching on <> ("not equals") >> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=308 >> >> Those patches should be committed at once because (2) requires (1) to work >> with EXCLUDE constraints. Also, (1) has no benefits without (2) because we >> have no use cases for <> as an index-able operator. Both patches are very >> simple and small, and worked as expected both "WHERE <>" and EXCLUDE >> constraints cases. > > It appears that Tom already committed (1). > >> I'd like to ask you to write additional documentation about btree_gist  >> that the module will be more useful when it is used with exclusion >> constraints together. Without documentation, no users find the usages. > > Good idea, new patch attached.
It seems pretty odd to define a constant called BTNotEqualStrategyNumber in contrib/btree_gist. Shouldn't we either call this something else, or define it in access/skey.h? Considering that there seem to be some interesting gymnastics being done with BTMaxStrategyNumber, I'd vote for the former. Maybe just BtreeGistNotEqualStrategyNumber? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers