Re: operator exclusion constraints

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: operator exclusion constraints
Date: 2009-11-05 14:50:30
Message-ID: 20091105145030.GH3694@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas escribió:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:

> > Or as table constraint
> >
> > EXCLUSIVE (a, b) BY =
> >
> > And then you could think of UNIQUE as "EXCLUSIVE BY default-equals-op".
> >
> > EXCLUSIVE is already a key word, by the way.
>
> Ooh, that's kind of neat. But I think you'd need EXCLUSIVE (a, b) BY
> (=, =), since it could equally well be EXCLUSIVE (a, b) BY (=, &&).

Perhaps EXCLUSIVE (a BY =, b BY =)

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dimitri Fontaine 2009-11-05 14:51:06 Re: Shall we just get rid of plpgsql's RENAME?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2009-11-05 14:39:41 Re: operator exclusion constraints