Re: operator exclusion constraints

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, 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 19:14:10
Message-ID: 20091109191410.GD3584@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greg Stark escribió:

> Out of curiosity, is this feature at all similar to SQL assertions?
> What would we be missing to turn this into them?

I see no relationship to assertions. Those are not tied to any
particular table, and are defined with any random expression you care to
think of.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2009-11-09 19:16:56 Re: operator exclusion constraints
Previous Message Robert Haas 2009-11-09 18:42:47 Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Rewrite GEQO's gimme_tree function so that it always finds a