| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: generalized index constraints |
| Date: | 2009-09-20 16:16:24 |
| Message-ID: | 1253463384.23353.292.camel@jdavis |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 23:15 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I was wondering if we couldn't introduce a dummy tuple name similar to
> OLD and NEW, called, say, OTHER. Then instead of writing a =, you
> could write a = OTHER.a ... or perhaps a = OTHER.b ... although that
> might also open the door to more things than you want to support at
> this point.
Interesting idea. At this point though, there is enough disagreement
over the language that I just want to take the least-invasive route that
has the lowest chance of causing a problem. It looks like ALTER INDEX
might be the path of least resistance.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-09-20 16:17:34 | Re: operator exclusion constraints [was: generalized index constraints] |
| Previous Message | Emmanuel Cecchet | 2009-09-20 16:08:59 | Re: generic copy options |