| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, 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 19:05:26 |
| Message-ID: | 17833.1257534326@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
> BTW, is it the case that room maps to = and during maps to && in this
> example? If so, wouldn't it make more sense to combine them?
> EXCLUSION (room WITH =, during WITH &&)
I think so too. Keeping the expression and the associated operator
together seems more readable and less error-prone than having them
separated by other columns.
BTW, where is the optional opclass name going to fit in? ("There
isn't one" is not an acceptable answer.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-11-06 19:10:27 | Re: plperl and inline functions -- first draft |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-11-06 19:00:36 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |