From 7190220555f25ec1e4a64b4fc4679a1931b2cd35 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 02:32:08 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] Add C comment that we will have to remove an exclusion
 constraint check if we ever implement '<>' index opclasses.

Jeff Davis
---
 src/backend/executor/execUtils.c | 5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/executor/execUtils.c b/src/backend/executor/execUtils.c
index de78719c4c..eff6529b74 100644
--- 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,