| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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 18:03:22 |
| Message-ID: | 407d949e0911091003i66e5bd24g7105984da2b91828@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 5:12 PM, David E. Wheeler <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 2009, at 7:43 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
>
>> Either of those names are fine with me, too. The current name is a
>> somewhat shortened version of the name "operator-based exclusion
>> constraints", so we can also just use that name. Or, just "exclusion
>> constraints".
>
> (exclusion constraints)++
Out of curiosity, is this feature at all similar to SQL assertions?
What would we be missing to turn this into them?
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-11-09 18:05:48 | Re: more support for various frame types of window functions |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-11-09 17:26:51 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Rewrite GEQO's gimme_tree function so that it always finds a |