Re: WIP: generalized index constraints

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: WIP: generalized index constraints
Date: 2009-09-15 17:16:54
Message-ID: 603c8f070909151016u533eed80j927a0600f5624a3f@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 2009/9/16 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I don't want to call them "don't overlap constraints", because it's not
>>> limited to a non-overlapping constraint.
>>
>> Oh.  What else can you do with it?
>
> Anything that there is an operator for.

Uhh.... so what happens if I create an index constraint using the
+(integer, integer) operator?

...Robert

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-09-15 17:17:24 Re: Timestamp to time_t
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-09-15 17:15:55 Re: errcontext support in PL/Perl