Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Skip to content

Navigation Menu

Sign in
Appearance settings

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

Provide feedback

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Sign up
Appearance settings

Commit7190220

Browse files
committed
Add C comment that we will have to remove an exclusion constraint check
if we ever implement '<>' index opclasses.Jeff Davis
1 parent47d6d44 commit7190220

File tree

1 file changed

+3
-2
lines changed

1 file changed

+3
-2
lines changed

‎src/backend/executor/execUtils.c

Lines changed: 3 additions & 2 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
88
*
99
*
1010
* IDENTIFICATION
11-
* $PostgreSQL: pgsql/src/backend/executor/execUtils.c,v 1.171 2010/02/26 02:00:41 momjian Exp $
11+
* $PostgreSQL: pgsql/src/backend/executor/execUtils.c,v 1.172 2010/05/29 02:32:08 momjian Exp $
1212
*
1313
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1414
*/
@@ -1310,7 +1310,8 @@ check_exclusion_constraint(Relation heap, Relation index, IndexInfo *indexInfo,
13101310

13111311
/*
13121312
* We should have found our tuple in the index, unless we exited the loop
1313-
* early because of conflict. Complain if not.
1313+
* early because of conflict. Complain if not. If we ever implement
1314+
* '<>' index opclasses, this check will fail and will have to be removed.
13141315
*/
13151316
if (!found_self&& !conflict)
13161317
ereport(ERROR,

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp