pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Mark Dilger <hornschnorter@gmail.com>
Cc: Regina Obe <lr@pcorp.us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 10 changes in exclusion constraints - did something change? CASE WHEN behavior oddity
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 14:18:41 -0400
Message-ID: <28631.1497205121@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170610180419.2gref4t7oipjcri5@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20170610180419.2gref4t7oipjcri5@alvherre.pgsql>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Interesting stuff.  Here's a small recommendation for a couple of those
> new messages.

Hm.  I don't object to folding those two messages into one, but now that
I look at it, the text needs some more work anyway, perhaps.  What we're
actually checking is not so much whether the IS DISTINCT FROM construct
returns a set as whether the underlying equality operator does.  If we
want to be pedantic about it, we'd end up writing something like

	"equality operator used by %s must not return a set"

But perhaps it's okay to fuzz the distinction and just write

	"%s must not return a set"

You could justify that on the reasoning that if we were to allow this
then an underlying "=" that returned a set would presumably cause
IS DISTINCT FROM or NULLIF to also return a set.

I'm kind of thinking that the second wording is preferable, but there's
room to argue that the first is more precise.  Opinions?

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers



view thread (30+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <28631.1497205121@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../28631.1497205121@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/28631.1497205121@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, andres@anarazel.de, hornschnorter@gmail.com, lr@pcorp.us
  Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 10 changes in exclusion constraints - did something change? CASE WHEN behavior oddity
  In-Reply-To: <28631.1497205121@sss.pgh.pa.us>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox