| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: operator exclusion constraints |
| Date: | 2009-11-05 19:09:07 |
| Message-ID: | 1257448147.28470.76.camel@monkey-cat.sm.truviso.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2009-11-05 at 09:56 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Ooh, that's kind of neat. But I think you'd need EXCLUSIVE (a, b) BY
> > (=, =), since it could equally well be EXCLUSIVE (a, b) BY (=, &&).
>
> Yeah, we definitely want some parentheses delimiting the expression.
> EXCLUSIVE still feels like the wrong part-of-speech though. How
> about EXCLUDING (...) BY ... instead?
I think EXCLUDING conflicts with the EXCLUDING in LIKE. Also, it becomes
a little more difficult to place the access method clause, because
"EXCLUDING USING gist" doesn't sound great.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2009-11-05 19:16:28 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |
| Previous Message | James Pye | 2009-11-05 18:41:39 | Re: Typed tables |