Re: [SPAM]Re: Questions about 9.0 release note

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [SPAM]Re: Questions about 9.0 release note
Date: 2010-04-05 14:35:19
Message-ID: 20897.1270478119@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>>> + Exclusion constraints ensure that if any two rows are compared on
>>> + the specified columns or expressions using the specified operators,
>>> + at least one of these operator comparisons will be false. The syntax is:
>>
>> Isn't that phrasing outright incorrect? Consider nulls.

> Well, doesn't a comparison returning null really behave as false?
> Should I reword it as "not true" or "false or null"?

Either one.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2010-04-05 14:47:20 Re: count function alternative in postgres
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-04-05 14:15:24 Re: VACUUM FULL during initdb