| From: | Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: generalized index constraints |
| Date: | 2009-09-15 17:21:54 |
| Message-ID: | 37ed240d0909151021v3addf3a2hf84d9389c8c6c63c@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2009/9/16 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> 2009/9/16 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> I don't want to call them "don't overlap constraints", because it's not
>>>> limited to a non-overlapping constraint.
>>>
>>> Oh. What else can you do with it?
>>
>> Anything that there is an operator for.
>
> Uhh.... so what happens if I create an index constraint using the
> +(integer, integer) operator?
Okay, so my first answer was a simplification. You can use any
operator that has an appropriate index strategy entry.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-09-15 17:28:28 | Re: WIP: generalized index constraints |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-09-15 17:20:28 | Re: hardware information |