Re: WIP: Deferrable unique constraints

From: Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)googlemail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: WIP: Deferrable unique constraints
Date: 2009-07-14 21:06:45
Message-ID: 20090714210645.GA4506@it.is.rice.edu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 12:13:33PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 13:29 -0500, Kenneth Marshall wrote:
> > I am looking at adding unique support to hash indexes for 8.5 and
> > they will definitely need to visit the heap.
>
> Have you seen this patch?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1246840119.19547.126.camel@jdavis
>
> This patch will support unique constraints for hash indexes as well.
> There may still be a use-case for specialized hash index unique
> constraints, similar to btree, but please follow the work to make sure
> that no work is wasted.
>
> Also, I don't see a problem with using the same hacks in the hash index
> code as is used in the btree index code. If you see a better way, or if
> you think index AM changes would be useful to you as well, you should
> probably open that discussion.
>
> I was trying to provide an alternative to an index AM API change,
> because I thought there might be some resistance to that. However, if
> there are multiple index AMs that can make use of it, there is a
> stronger case for an API change.
>
> Regards,
> Jeff Davis
>

I will take a look at that patch. My thought was to use the same
process as the btree support for unique indexes since it has been
well tested and optimized.

Thanks,
Ken

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Petr Jelinek 2009-07-14 21:10:00 [PATCH] DefaultACLs
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2009-07-14 20:28:13 Re: Alpha release process