| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 23:03:35 |
| Message-ID: | 1257548615.28470.269.camel@monkey-cat.sm.truviso.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2009-11-06 at 14:59 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> If we restrict this thing to being a table constraint, not a column
> constraint, it seems like the issue might go away (and in fact I think
> you might not even need col_name_keyword).
I never enabled the syntax for column constraints, so it was always a
part of ConstraintElem.
To make sure I understand what you're saying, you think that:
CREATE TABLE foo
(
exclusion int,
EXCLUSION (exclusion CHECK WITH =)
);
should work? It's not ambiguous, but I'm not an expert on the grammar,
so I don't immediately know a non-invasive way to express that.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc Munro | 2009-11-06 23:28:49 | Quoting oddities when defining operators in postgres 8.3 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-11-06 22:01:55 | Re: Specific names for plpgsql variable-resolution control options? |