Re: operator exclusion constraints [was: generalized index constraints]

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: operator exclusion constraints [was: generalized index constraints]
Date: 2009-09-20 17:28:38
Message-ID: 23560.1253467718@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, 2009-09-20 at 13:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> You're right, it still seems remarkably marginal. I'm rethinking
>> my position on use of CONSTRAINT syntax because of the deferrability
>> issue, but I'm still unconvinced that we need to allow the constraints
>> to be decoupled from the indexes.

> Ok, should I explicitly disallow multiple constraints on one index then?

What I'm arguing for is a syntax in which the question doesn't even
arise, ie, a CONSTRAINT doesn't reference an existing index at all.
If that's not possible for whatever reason, then I think that
disallowing multiple references isn't going to buy any simplicity.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2009-09-20 17:38:01 Re: operator exclusion constraints [was: generalized index constraints]
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2009-09-20 17:19:35 Re: operator exclusion constraints [was: generalized index constraints]