Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> How so? If you think this change is a bad idea you'd better speak up
>> PDQ.
> Well I think it's fine for 'foo ' != 'foo' even if they sort similarly.
> But I'm not sure it makes sense for <'foo ','a'> to sort after <'foo','b'> if
> the locale says that 'foo ' should be compare "equal" to 'foo' and 'a' before
> 'b'.
I don't think we can concern ourselves with that; it would require
allowing different columns of an index to interact, which would be
impossibly messy. What's more, it'd destroy the property that a btree
index is sorted by its leading column(s) as well as by all its columns.
> Perhaps we should always generate those inequalities even if there's no index
> that can use them.
Hmmm ... we intentionally don't do that, but the constraint exclusion
code might be a sufficient reason to reconsider.
regards, tom lane