Re: small exclusion constraints patch
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: small exclusion constraints patch |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTinhuqAwH2xgNc78YrNYZxk1nxf80RGnjV0gy-Zb@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: small exclusion constraints patch (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: small exclusion constraints patch
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@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? Hmm. Well suppose we bet a dollar on whether that will happen or not.In fact, if you promise not to read http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-05/msg01175.php I'll make it two dollars. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: