| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 19:22:03 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070911061122u1330effch1c9085532671ba6f@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-11-06 at 10:50 -0800, David E. Wheeler wrote:
>> Is your objection to EXCLUDE for cases when there is no USING clause?
>>
>> EXLUDE (room, during) BY (=, &&)
>>
>
> "Objection" is too strong a word. EXCLUDE is a transitive verb, so it's
> slightly confusing in the above case.
>
>> 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 &&)
>
> That's (close to) the current syntax, which I'm perfectly fine with.
> Form 1 with EXCLUSION/CHECK WITH is the current syntax.
>
> It seemed like the winds were shifting towards separating them, but I'm
> happy leaving it alone.
I don't favor separating them. Locality of reference is good.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-11-06 19:22:31 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-11-06 19:13:53 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |