| From: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)googlemail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: operator exclusion constraints |
| Date: | 2009-11-03 21:31:32 |
| Message-ID: | 8e2dbb700911031331p49c5763fl277df34006d3d3d5@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2009/11/3 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
>> I'm not excited about using NOT, because I think it has a hint of a
>> double-negative when combined with EXCLUSION.
>
> Well, the choice of EXCLUSION isn't set in stone either ...
>
Is this really a generalized uniqueness constraint, extended to
support operators other than = ?
Perhaps sticking with the word UNIQUE might be more suggestive of this:
UNIQUE (room_number WITH = , during WITH &&)
or:
UNIQUE (room_number , during USING && )
- Dean
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-11-03 22:05:14 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |
| Previous Message | Steve Crawford | 2009-11-03 20:07:33 | Re: EOL for 7.4? |