On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
>> We can either eliminate the USING variant from opt_class (unless it's
>> necessary for some reason or I missed it in the documentation), or we
>> can use another word (e.g. WITH or WITH OPERATOR) if you don't like
> Hmm ... we don't seem to have documented the USING noise-word, so it
> probably would be safe to remove it; but why take a chance? I don't
> particularly agree with Peter's objection to CHECK. There are plenty
> of examples in SQL of the same keyword being used for different purposes
> in nearby places. Indeed you could make about the same argument to
> object to USING, since it'd still be there in "USING access_method"
> elsewhere in the same command.
> I think that USING is just about as content-free as WITH in this
> particular example --- it doesn't give you any hint about what the
> purpose of the operator is.
USING might be just as content-free as WITH, but USING OPERATOR seems
clearly better, at least IMO.
Also, this patch has not been updated in a week, and the clock is
ticking: if we don't have an updated version RSN, we need to move this
to Returned with Feedback and wait until next CommitFest. That would
be too bad; this is an awesome feature.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-09-27 17:08:20|
|Subject: Re: operator exclusion constraints [was: generalized index constraints] |
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2009-09-27 16:58:26|
|Subject: Re: [PATCH] Largeobject access controls|