Re: operator exclusion constraints [was: generalized index constraints]

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: operator exclusion constraints [was: generalized index constraints]
Date: 2009-09-23 12:10:16
Message-ID: 1253707816.20834.9.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, 2009-09-20 at 19:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> > I suppose I should just allow any index_elem. The only way I was able to
> > make the grammar for that work is by using a reserved keyword. The
> > possibilities that make the most sense to me are:
>
> > index_elem WITH any_operator
> > index_elem WITH OPERATOR any_operator
> > index_elem CHECK any_operator
> > index_elem CHECK OPERATOR any_operator
>
> > Do any of these look acceptable?
>
> I'd vote for "CHECK", out of that list. WITH has no mnemonic value
> whatever.

Using CHECK as part of the syntax of an EXCLUSION constraint will surely
confuse the whole thing with CHECK constraints.

USING OPERATOR is available, I think.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Petr Jelinek 2009-09-23 12:40:48 Re: [PATCH] DefaultACLs
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2009-09-23 11:36:02 Re: Hot Standby 0.2.1