From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | tomas(at)tuxteam(dot)de |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: WIP: generalized index constraints |
Date: | 2009-09-16 16:45:52 |
Message-ID: | 1253119552.24770.203.camel@jdavis |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 15:11 +0200, tomas(at)tuxteam(dot)de wrote:
> One question: does the operator have to be reflexive? I.e. "A op A holds
> for all A"?
I don't think that reflexivity is a strict requirement. You could make
this a constraint over a boolean attribute such that false conflicts
with true and true conflicts with false. That would mean that your table
would have to consist of either all false or all true.
> I am thinking "proximity" or as you state above "similarity". May be
> this is a good metaphor, leading to a good name.
That's an interesting idea: "proximity constraint". I like it because
(a) "proximity" might reasonably be considered a more general form of
the word "unique", which might satisfy Peter's argument; (b) it conveys
the use case; and (c) it sounds good.
There are a couple bizarre cases where "proximity" doesn't quite fit,
like my boolean example above, but I'm OK with that.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-09-16 17:05:43 | Re: Linux LSB init script |
Previous Message | Steve Prentice | 2009-09-16 16:19:25 | Re: PATCH: make plpgsql IN args mutable (v1) [REVIEW] |