From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: operator exclusion constraints |
Date: | 2009-11-09 19:14:10 |
Message-ID: | 20091109191410.GD3584@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark escribió:
> Out of curiosity, is this feature at all similar to SQL assertions?
> What would we be missing to turn this into them?
I see no relationship to assertions. Those are not tied to any
particular table, and are defined with any random expression you care to
think of.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-11-09 19:16:56 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-11-09 18:42:47 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Rewrite GEQO's gimme_tree function so that it always finds a |