| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)googlemail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: operator exclusion constraints |
| Date: | 2009-11-03 22:05:14 |
| Message-ID: | 1257285914.25534.76.camel@monkey-cat.sm.truviso.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 21:31 +0000, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> Is this really a generalized uniqueness constraint, extended to
> support operators other than = ?
That has been discussed in the past:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1253119552.24770.203.camel@jdavis
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1253122946.24770.250.camel@jdavis
However, some constraints allowed by this feature are the *opposite* of
unique: consider "<>".
Personally, I don't like to use the word UNIQUE to describe a constraint
that may reject unique values or permit duplicates.
We already have some reasonable agreement around EXCLUSION ... CHECK
WITH. We should stick with the current syntax unless there's a good
consensus around some other specific proposal.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | daveg | 2009-11-03 22:14:40 | Re: EOL for 7.4? |
| Previous Message | Dean Rasheed | 2009-11-03 21:31:32 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |