From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Comments on Exclusion Constraints and related datatypes |
Date: | 2010-03-22 14:13:57 |
Message-ID: | 18763.1269267237@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> * Exclusion indexes are created with the suffix "_exclusion". That's a
> very long suffix and will overflow most defined reports/screens. It
> would be much better to use just "_excl",
No particular objection here.
> * Circles, Boxes and other geometric datatypes defined "overlaps" to
> include touching shapes. So
> SELECT circle '((0,0), 1)' && circle '((2,0),1)';
> is true, which is fairly strange and makes those datatypes very counter
> intuitive. Considering they are instructional aids, this is bad.
You're approximately twenty years too late to propose changing that,
even if it were clearly a good idea which I doubt.
> Also, if the only common sense usage of exclusion constraints is GIST,
> why does the syntax default to "btree"?
Since your "if" isn't a correct statement, the complaint doesn't follow.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-03-22 14:15:18 | Re: ALTER TABLE .... make constraint DEFERRABLE |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2010-03-22 14:03:57 | Re: Proposal: access control jails (and introduction as aspiring GSoC student) |