2009/7/15 Tom Lane <[email protected]>: > 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 ugly: bool index_insert(Relation indexRelation, Datum *values, bool *isnull, ItemPointer heap_t_ctid, Relation heapRelation, IndexUniqueCheck uniqueness_check, bool *is_unique); This would allow me to tidy up some of the code I added to ExecInsertIndexTuples() which is a bit of a kludge to support the hash indexes enforcing uniqueness in the future: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-07/msg00812.php Also I could then move the ereport() for unique key violations from _bt_check_unique() into index_insert() which would allow the Duplicate key value error patch to be non-btree-specific: http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/[email protected] http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/[email protected] Thoughts?
pgsql-hackers by date:
Соглашаюсь с условиями обработки персональных данных
