2009/7/15 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
There is no reason at all to avoid an index AM API change if one is
useful.
Thinking about this a bit more, perhaps it would be better if I added
an out parameter to the AM for the uniqueness result, rather than
overloading the return value, which is quite
On Sat, 2009-07-18 at 11:09 +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
Thinking about this a bit more, perhaps it would be better if I added
an out parameter to the AM for the uniqueness result, rather than
overloading the return value, which is quite ugly:
Sounds reasonable to me.
Regards,
Jeff
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com writes:
So, should we proceed assuming an index AM API change, or try to avoid
it? If we should change the AM API, is Dean's API change acceptable?
There is no reason at all to avoid an index AM API change if one is
useful. If you look at the history, we tend to
I am reviewing the following patch:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/8e2dbb700907071138y4ebe75cw81879aa513cf8...@mail.gmail.com
In order to provide useful feedback, I would like to reach a consensus
on a possible index AM API change to make it easier to support
deferrable constraints
