| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: UNIQUE null treatment option |
| Date: | 2022-02-03 10:54:10 |
| Message-ID: | 12facb9f-541b-5a5c-040e-a5ca3c1dd4a3@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 28.01.22 13:56, Pavel Borisov wrote:
> Makes sense. Here is an updated patch with this change.
>
> I didn't end up renaming anynullkeys. I came up with names like
> "anyalwaysdistinctkeys", but in the end that felt too abstract, and
> moreover, it would require rewriting a bunch of code comments that
> refer
> to null values in this context. Since as you wrote, anynullkeys is
> just
> a local concern between two functions, this slight inaccuracy is
> perhaps
> better than some highly general but unclear terminology.
>
> Agree with that. With the comment it is clear how it works.
>
> I've looked at the patch v3. It seems good enough for me. CFbot tests
> have also come green.
> Suggest it is RFC now.
Committed. Thanks.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2022-02-03 11:54:35 | Re: Bugs in pgoutput.c |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2022-02-03 09:55:37 | Re: Design of pg_stat_subscription_workers vs pgstats |