From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: operator exclusion constraints [was: generalized index constraints] |
Date: | 2009-09-27 18:23:38 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f070909271123n5759043eid2b6e7d15cf0530c@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> I think that USING is just about as content-free as WITH in this
>>> particular example --- it doesn't give you any hint about what the
>>> purpose of the operator is.
>
>> USING might be just as content-free as WITH, but USING OPERATOR seems
>> clearly better, at least IMO.
>
> It's not enough better to justify the conflict with USING opclass, IMO.
>
> An idea that just struck me is CHECK WITH, ie
>
> EXCLUSION (expr CHECK WITH operator)
I don't like that as well as USING OPERATOR, but I like it far better
than any of the single-word choices, so maybe it's a reasonable
compromise.
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-09-27 18:28:19 | Re: Issues for named/mixed function notation patch |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-09-27 17:59:31 | Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5 |