From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: operator exclusion constraints [was: generalized index constraints] |
Date: | 2009-09-23 15:21:58 |
Message-ID: | 1253719318.5640.17.camel@jdavis |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2009-09-23 at 15:10 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Using CHECK as part of the syntax of an EXCLUSION constraint will surely
> confuse the whole thing with CHECK constraints.
>
> USING OPERATOR is available, I think.
USING won't work because one of the ways to specify the opclass in an
index_elem is something like:
CREATE INDEX foo_idx on foo (i USING int4_ops);
which appears to be undocumented, and it's not obvious to me why that is
useful. The normal way is just:
CREATE INDEX foo_idx on foo (i int4_ops);
Because I am allowing any index_elem for exclusion constraints, that
conflicts with the word USING.
We can either eliminate the USING variant from opt_class (unless it's
necessary for some reason or I missed it in the documentation), or we
can use another word (e.g. WITH or WITH OPERATOR) if you don't like
CHECK.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-09-23 15:42:43 | Re: Anonymous code blocks |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-09-23 15:06:38 | Re: Getting the red out (of the buildfarm) |