Re: operator exclusion constraints

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: operator exclusion constraints
Date: 2009-11-05 14:56:21
Message-ID: 20174.1257432981@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 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 (=, &&).

Yeah, we definitely want some parentheses delimiting the expression.
EXCLUSIVE still feels like the wrong part-of-speech though. How
about EXCLUDING (...) BY ... instead?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tommy Gildseth 2009-11-05 15:01:57 Re: ident changes between 8.3 and 8.4
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-11-05 14:51:48 Re: Shall we just get rid of plpgsql's RENAME?