| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: operator exclusion constraints |
| Date: | 2009-11-14 17:11:42 |
| Message-ID: | 36F3707E-02F0-44ED-A545-4A405E25ED68@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Nov 14, 2009, at 8:55 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I've been meaning to comment on this syntax one more time; apologies for the bike-shedding. But I'm wondering if the "CHECK" is strictly necessary there, since the WITH seems adequate, and there was some discussion before about the CHECK keyword possibly causing confusion with check constraints.
>
> I had been manfully restraining myself from re-opening this discussion,
> but yeah I was thinking the same thing. The original objection to using
> just WITH was that it wasn't very clear what you were doing "with" the
> operator; but that was back when we had a different initial keyword for
> the construct. EXCLUDE ... WITH ... seems to match up pretty naturally.
You're more man than I, Tom, but yeah, with EXCLUDE, WITH works well on its own, methinks.
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2009-11-14 17:12:33 | Re: BUG #5065: pg_ctl start fails as administrator, with "could not locate matching postgres executable" |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-11-14 17:07:37 | Re: Inspection of row types in pl/pgsql and pl/sql |