Re: db_user_namespace a "temporary measure"
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: db_user_namespace a "temporary measure" |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 26386.1394672076@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: db_user_namespace a "temporary measure" (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: db_user_namespace a "temporary measure"
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> Except that we don't have the infrastructure to perform such checks >> (neither partial, nor expression indexes, no exclusion constraints) on >> system tables atm. So it's not a entirely trivial thing to do. > I'm probably woefully underinformed here, but it seems like getting > exclusion constraints working might be simpler than partial indexes or > expression indexes, because both of those involve being able to > evaluate arbitrary predicates, whereas exclusion constraints just > involve invoking index access methods to look for conflicting rows via > smarts built into your index AM. The latter seems to involve less > risk of circularity (but I might be wrong). You might be right. I don't think anyone's ever looked at what it would take to support that particular case. We have looked at the other cases and run away screaming ... but I think that was before exclusion constraints existed. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: