Add C comment that we will have to remove an exclusion constraint check

if we ever implement '<>' index opclasses.

Jeff Davis

diff --git a/src/backend/executor/execUtils.c b/src/backend/executor/execUtils.c
index de78719c4c5d12b8e1b26d47e8545ba3d3346173..eff6529b74be7363491108cab204587b957cd637 100644 (file)
--- a/src/backend/executor/execUtils.c
+++ b/src/backend/executor/execUtils.c
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
  *
  *
  * IDENTIFICATION
- *       $PostgreSQL: pgsql/src/backend/executor/execUtils.c,v 1.171 2010/02/26 02:00:41 momjian Exp $
+ *       $PostgreSQL: pgsql/src/backend/executor/execUtils.c,v 1.172 2010/05/29 02:32:08 momjian Exp $
  *
  *-------------------------------------------------------------------------
  */
@@ -1310,7 +1310,8 @@ retry:
 
        /*
         * We should have found our tuple in the index, unless we exited the loop
-        * early because of conflict.  Complain if not.
+        * early because of conflict.  Complain if not.  If we ever implement
+     * '<>' index opclasses, this check will fail and will have to be removed.
         */
        if (!found_self && !conflict)
                ereport(ERROR,