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

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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