Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 10 changes in exclusion constraints - did something change? CASE WHEN behavior oddity - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 10 changes in exclusion constraints - did something change? CASE WHEN behavior oddity
Date
Msg-id 28631.1497205121@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 10 changes in exclusion constraints - didsomething change? CASE WHEN behavior oddity  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Interesting stuff.  Here's a small recommendation for a couple of those
> new messages.

Hm.  I don't object to folding those two messages into one, but now that
I look at it, the text needs some more work anyway, perhaps.  What we're
actually checking is not so much whether the IS DISTINCT FROM construct
returns a set as whether the underlying equality operator does.  If we
want to be pedantic about it, we'd end up writing something like
"equality operator used by %s must not return a set"

But perhaps it's okay to fuzz the distinction and just write
"%s must not return a set"

You could justify that on the reasoning that if we were to allow this
then an underlying "=" that returned a set would presumably cause
IS DISTINCT FROM or NULLIF to also return a set.

I'm kind of thinking that the second wording is preferable, but there's
room to argue that the first is more precise.  Opinions?
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] TPC-H Q20 from 1 hour to 19 hours!
Next
From: Vladimir Borodin
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Broken hint bits (freeze)