Re: Extra check in 9.0 exclusion constraint unintended consequences - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Extra check in 9.0 exclusion constraint unintended consequences
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoahxbkEd7dYHmx-JCsrq33gAAjUpOztYOH7JSs8rporLw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Extra check in 9.0 exclusion constraint unintended consequences  (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>)
Responses Re: Extra check in 9.0 exclusion constraint unintended consequences
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-07-10 at 00:36 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Is this really a good idea?  I think the note should still be there in
>> 9.1 and beyond (with the version applicability note of course)
>
> I see your point, but it also seems strange to keep such a note
> permanently. And it also seems minor enough that we don't want it to be
> another thing to keep track of.
>
> I don't really have a strong opinion here. People might hit in in 9.0,
> but there's a workaround. And they won't hit it in 9.1+.

I dropped the ball on this, mostly because I was on vacation the week
we were having this discussion - and by the time I got back it was too
far down in the folder.

I'm OK with adding a note either to the 9.0 docs only (which means it
might be missed by a 9.0 user who only looks at the current docs) or
with adding a note to all versions mentioning the difference in
behavior with 9.0, but I'm not really sure which way to go with it.
Or we could just not do anything at all.  Anyone else have an opinion?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: per-column FDW options, v5
Next
From: Jean-Baptiste Quenot
Date:
Subject: plpython crash