| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: generalized index constraints |
| Date: | 2009-09-15 19:30:01 |
| Message-ID: | 20636.1253043001@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 14:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Does it behave sanely for operators that are non-commutative, such
>> as '>'? (I'm not even very sure that I know what "sanely" would be
>> in such a case.)
> If you try it, my current patch won't stop you. Maybe I should detect
> the fact that the commutator of an operator is not the operator itself,
> and throw an ERROR? Probably would be a good idea.
+1. Otherwise people *will* try it, and then send us bug reports when
it doesn't behave sanely.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2009-09-15 19:49:27 | Re: WIP: generalized index constraints |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-09-15 19:22:46 | Re: WIP: generalized index constraints |