| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: UNIQUE null treatment option |
| Date: | 2022-01-13 18:47:09 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wzm+LwPHX=pB7i6PoTrQi=C_WbF-6yNYqrotX5mSc7s4nQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 10:36 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> I wonder if the logic for setting BTScanInsertData.anynullkeys inside
> _bt_mkscankey() is the place to put your test for
> rel->rd_index->indnullsnotdistinct -- not inside _bt_doinsert(). That
> would probably necessitate renaming anynullkeys, but that's okay. This
> feels more natural to me because a NULL key column in a NULLS NOT
> DISTINCT unique constraint is very similar to a NULL non-key column in
> an INCLUDE index, as far as our requirements go -- and so both cases
> should probably be dealt with at the same point.
Correction: I meant to write "...a NULL key column in a NULLS DISTINCT
unique constraint is very similar...".
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-01-13 18:55:27 | Re: Adding CI to our tree |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2022-01-13 18:36:45 | Re: UNIQUE null treatment option |