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