Re: WIP: generalized index constraints
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Brendan Jurd <direvus@gmail.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2009-09-15T19:30:01Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.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