| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(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: | 2009-11-06 18:50:19 |
| Message-ID: | 192B332B-F22F-4445-A5DF-FA3D088E73A6@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Nov 6, 2009, at 10:42 AM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> Right now, I am leaning toward Form 2, and EXCLUSION/BY. So the
> typical
> case would read like:
>
> EXCLUSION USING gist (room, during) BY (=, &&)
I like this, but like EXCLUDE better
EXCLUDE USING gist (room, during) BY (=, &&)
Is your objection to EXCLUDE for cases when there is no USING clause?
EXLUDE (room, during) BY (=, &&)
Yes, I can see how that'd be a bit more confusing. So EXCLUSION
probably is best.
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 &&)
Or am I misunderstanding how this works (quite likely, I'm sure).
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-11-06 19:00:36 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-11-06 18:42:55 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |