Re: small exclusion constraints patch

Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> writes:
> > Currently, the check for exclusion constraints performs a sanity check
> > that's slightly too strict -- it assumes that a tuple will conflict with
> > itself. That is not always the case: the operator might be "<>", in
> > which case it's perfectly valid for the search for conflicts to not find
> > itself.
> 
> > This patch simply removes that sanity check, and leaves a comment in
> > place.
> 
> I'm a bit uncomfortable with removing the sanity check; it seems like a
> good thing to have, especially since this code hasn't even made it out
> of beta yet.  AFAIK the "<>" case is purely hypothetical, because we
> have no index opclasses supporting such an operator, no?  How about just
> documenting that we'd need to remove the sanity check if we ever did add
> support for such a case?

Done, with attached, applied patch.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com