Re: small exclusion constraints patch - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: small exclusion constraints patch
Date
Msg-id AANLkTinhuqAwH2xgNc78YrNYZxk1nxf80RGnjV0gy-Zb@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: small exclusion constraints patch  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: small exclusion constraints patch
List 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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH]: CRC32 is limiting at COPY/CTAS/INSERT ... SELECT + speeding it up
Next
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH]: CRC32 is limiting at COPY/CTAS/INSERT ... SELECT + speeding it up