| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2009-11-14 19:35:29 |
| Message-ID: | 1258227329.708.109.camel@jdavis |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 2009-11-14 at 09:11 -0800, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Nov 14, 2009, at 8:55 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I had been manfully restraining myself from re-opening this discussion,
> > but yeah I was thinking the same thing. The original objection to using
> > just WITH was that it wasn't very clear what you were doing "with" the
> > operator; but that was back when we had a different initial keyword for
> > the construct. EXCLUDE ... WITH ... seems to match up pretty naturally.
>
> You're more man than I, Tom, but yeah, with EXCLUDE, WITH works well on its own, methinks.
Changed in new patch here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1258226849.708.97.camel@jdavis
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-11-14 19:36:01 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-11-14 19:34:43 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |