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

Re: Comments on Exclusion Constraints and related datatypes

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Comments on Exclusion Constraints and related datatypes
Date: 2010-03-22 14:13:57
Message-ID: 18763.1269267237@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> * Exclusion indexes are created with the suffix "_exclusion". That's a
> very long suffix and will overflow most defined reports/screens. It
> would be much better to use just "_excl",

No particular objection here.

> * Circles, Boxes and other geometric datatypes defined "overlaps" to
> include touching shapes. So
> SELECT circle '((0,0), 1)' && circle '((2,0),1)';
> is true, which is fairly strange and makes those datatypes very counter
> intuitive. Considering they are instructional aids, this is bad.

You're approximately twenty years too late to propose changing that,
even if it were clearly a good idea which I doubt.

> Also, if the only common sense usage of exclusion constraints is GIST,
> why does the syntax default to "btree"?

Since your "if" isn't a correct statement, the complaint doesn't follow.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-03-22 14:15:18
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE .... make constraint DEFERRABLE
Previous:From: Stephen FrostDate: 2010-03-22 14:03:57
Subject: Re: Proposal: access control jails (and introduction asaspiring GSoC student)

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