Re: db_user_namespace a "temporary measure" - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: db_user_namespace a "temporary measure"
Date
Msg-id 26386.1394672076@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: db_user_namespace a "temporary measure"  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: db_user_namespace a "temporary measure"  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
List 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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: Replication slots and footguns
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: 9a57858f1103b89a5674f0d50c5fe1f756411df6