| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | KES <kes-kes(at)yandex(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Typo in doc or wrong EXCLUDE implementation |
| Date: | 2018-08-08 13:51:28 |
| Message-ID: | 12107.1533736288@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 01:55:53PM +0300, KES wrote:
>> If such exclusion constraint would be marked as UNIQUE we can use it for FK while implementing temporal/bi-temporal tables.
> Yes, it would work, but doing that only for equality would be surprising
> to many people because exclusion constraints are more general than
> equality comparisons.
In general, we should be discouraging people from using EXCLUDE syntax
with simple equality operators, not encouraging them to do so. It's
less efficient and less portable than a regular btree-based uniqueness
constraint. So I think this proposal is a bad idea regardless of
whether it'd be technically feasible or not.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chris Travers | 2018-08-08 14:53:42 | Re: Release note trimming: another modest proposal |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2018-08-08 13:00:40 | Re: Typo in doc or wrong EXCLUDE implementation |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-08-08 13:58:38 | Re: Facility for detecting insecure object naming |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2018-08-08 13:36:08 | Re: Negotiating the SCRAM channel binding type |