On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 10:46:12AM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 1/5/13 1:21 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > >On 21 December 2012 14:08, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>I'm sure it's possible; I don't *think* it's terribly easy. > > > >I'm inclined to agree that this isn't a terribly pressing issue. > >Certainly, the need to introduce a bunch of new infrastructure to > >detect this case seems hard to justify. > > Impossible to justify, I'd say. > > Does anyone have any objections to my adding this to the TODO list, > in case some clever GSOC student comes up with a way to do it > *without* adding a bunch of infrastructure?
I'm pretty sure the logical change stuff Andres et al. are working on will be able to include the originating node, which makes cycle detection dead simple. Other restrictions on the graph like, "must be a tree" might be more complicated. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
