On Sat, 2009-07-18 at 11:09 +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> Thinking about this a bit more, perhaps it would be better if I added
> an out parameter to the AM for the uniqueness result, rather than
> overloading the return value, which is quite ugly:
Sounds reasonable to me.
Regards,
Jeff Da
2009/7/15 Tom Lane :
> There is no reason at all to avoid an index AM API change if one is
> useful.
Thinking about this a bit more, perhaps it would be better if I added
an out parameter to the AM for the uniqueness result, rather than
overloading the return value, which is quite ugly:
bool
inde
Jeff Davis writes:
> So, should we proceed assuming an index AM API change, or try to avoid
> it? If we should change the AM API, is Dean's API change acceptable?
There is no reason at all to avoid an index AM API change if one is
useful. If you look at the history, we tend to change that API ev
I am reviewing the following patch:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/8e2dbb700907071138y4ebe75cw81879aa513cf8...@mail.gmail.com
In order to provide useful feedback, I would like to reach a consensus
on a possible index AM API change to make it easier to support
deferrable constraints for
