| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(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: | 2009-11-14 16:55:14 |
| Message-ID: | 14652.1258217714@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
> On Nov 13, 2009, at 8:39 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> alter table foo add constraint bar exclude (a check with =, b check with =);
> I've been meaning to comment on this syntax one more time; apologies for the bike-shedding. But I'm wondering if the "CHECK" is strictly necessary there, since the WITH seems adequate, and there was some discussion before about the CHECK keyword possibly causing confusion with check constraints.
I had been manfully restraining myself from re-opening this discussion,
but yeah I was thinking the same thing. The original objection to using
just WITH was that it wasn't very clear what you were doing "with" the
operator; but that was back when we had a different initial keyword for
the construct. EXCLUDE ... WITH ... seems to match up pretty naturally.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2009-11-14 16:57:56 | Re: Inspection of row types in pl/pgsql and pl/sql |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2009-11-14 16:45:51 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |