| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: generalized index constraints |
| Date: | 2009-09-15 19:22:46 |
| Message-ID: | 1253042566.29243.56.camel@monkey-cat.sm.truviso.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 12:03 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> Interesting :) I take it op1..opN (it's opN, not op2, right?) need to
> commute?
Yeah, it's opN.
And they should commute, but my current patch won't stop you. I think I
should stop that though, it's pretty difficult to think of a good
use-case for that and there is all kinds of danger.
> * "generalized-uniqueness constraints"
> the hyphen disambiguates
I don't like using the word "unique" in the description, I think it only
adds to the confusion.
> * "operator-based constraints"
> A little math-ier, but talks about the API rather than details of
> the server implementation.
I like this much better. Maybe "index operator constraints" or "operator
index constraints"?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-09-15 19:30:01 | Re: WIP: generalized index constraints |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-09-15 19:18:46 | Re: WIP: generalized index constraints |