| 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: | 2009-11-06 17:54:11 |
| Message-ID: | 1257530051.27737.519.camel@jdavis |
| 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:
> Yeah, we definitely want some parentheses delimiting the expression.
> EXCLUSIVE still feels like the wrong part-of-speech though. How
> about EXCLUDING (...) BY ... instead?
If I put EXCLUSION in the type_func_name keyword list, it works fine.
But I'm having a little trouble trying to use EXCLUDING or EXCLUSIVE,
because if I move them from unreserved to any other keyword list, I get
reduce/reduce conflicts.
Am I doing something wrong? I would assume that making words more
reserved would usually not lead to conflicts.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-11-06 18:42:55 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-11-06 17:36:22 | Re: "ERROR: could not read block 6 ...: read only 0 of 8192 bytes" after autovacuum cancelled |