|From:||Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>|
|To:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|Subject:||Re: WIP: generalized index constraints|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Sun, 2009-09-20 at 13:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> The current infrastructure for deferred uniqueness requires that the
> thing actually be a constraint, with an entry in pg_constraint that
> can carry the deferrability options. So unless we want to rethink
> that, this might be a sufficient reason to override my arguments
> about not wanting to use CONSTRAINT syntax.
Ok. Using the word EXCLUSION would hopefully guard us against future
changes to SQL, but you know more about the subtle dangers of language
changes than I do.
So, do I still omit it from information_schema?
> As far as implementation goes, I think there would be very little
> choice but to use the insert-the-index-entry-first, check-later
> approach; so your ideas involving extra state in shared memory
> seem to fall to the ground anyhow.
|Next Message||Tom Lane||2009-09-20 17:13:10||Re: operator exclusion constraints [was: generalized index constraints]|
|Previous Message||Jeff Davis||2009-09-20 17:01:14||Re: operator exclusion constraints [was: generalized index constraints]|