Re: Extra check in 9.0 exclusion constraint unintended consequences

Excerpts from Jeff Davis's message of vie jul 08 00:58:20 -0400 2011:
> On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 12:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > I think it's probably too late to go fiddling with the behavior of 9.0
> > at this point. If we change the text of error messages, there is a
> > chance that it might break applications; it would also require those
> > messages to be re-translated, and I don't think the issue is really
> > important enough to justify a change.
>
> Good point on the error messages -- I didn't really think of that as a
> big deal.
>
> > I am happy to see us document
> > it better, though, since it's pretty clear that there is more
> > likelihood of hitting that error than we might have suspected at the
> > outset.
>
> Doc patch attached, but I'm not attached to the wording. Remember that
> we only need to update the 9.0 docs, I don't think you want to apply
> this to master (though I'm not sure how this kind of thing is normally
> handled).

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)

--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support