| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: operator exclusion constraints |
| Date: | 2009-11-06 19:59:51 |
| Message-ID: | 3441.1257537591@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 Fri, 2009-11-06 at 14:00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The main advantage of the CHECK WITH syntax in my eyes was that it
>> avoided the need to create a new reserved word.
> It still needs the EXCLUSION keyword, though, and where does that fit
> in? If I include it as unreserved, I get shift/reduce conflicts. If I
> include it as a type_func_name keyword, it works.
If you could get it down to col_name_keyword, I wouldn't complain.
Most of the problems we've had with having to reserve keywords in CREATE
TABLE stem from the fact that they can follow a DEFAULT expression.
If we restrict this thing to being a table constraint, not a column
constraint, it seems like the issue might go away (and in fact I think
you might not even need col_name_keyword). As long as we are explicitly
specifying column names in the exclusion expressions, I don't think it's
very sensible to write it as a column constraint anyway. Have you
tried that approach?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-11-06 20:21:30 | Specific names for plpgsql variable-resolution control options? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-11-06 19:47:58 | WHERE CURRENT OF $n still needed? |