Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

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

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: operator exclusion constraints [was: generalized index constraints]
Date: 2009-09-21 00:21:51
Message-ID: 1253492511.6983.236.camel@jdavis (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sun, 2009-09-20 at 19:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW, are you sure EXCLUSION doesn't have to become a reserved word for
> this?  I notice that FOREIGN, CHECK, and UNIQUE all are, which makes me
> suspicious ...

All of those (except FOREIGN) can be used as a column constraint as
well, and that might be necessary for a reason similar to the reason I
need to use a reserved word (i.e. they can come after a DEFAULT
expression). Is it possible that FOREIGN doesn't really have to be a
reserved word, but was just included because the others were?

I'm not an expert on the matter, but it does appear to compile and
recognize the grammar with EXCLUSION as an unreserved keyword. I'm in
the middle of changing a lot of things around, so I can't say that it
works beyond that.

Regards,
	Jeff Davis




In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2009-09-21 00:43:45
Subject: Re: Resjunk sort columns, Heikki's index-only quals patch, and bug #5000
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-09-20 23:42:26
Subject: Re: operator exclusion constraints [was: generalized index constraints]

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group