Re: Comments on Exclusion Constraints and related datatypes

Greg Stark wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > * Circles, Boxes and other geometric datatypes defined "overlaps" to
> > include touching shapes. So
> >
> > * inet datatypes don't have a commutative operator on which a unique
> > index can be built. There is no "overlaps" equivalent, which again is a
> > shame because that stops them being used with the new feature.
>
> I think our unusual data types are one of the strong points of
> Postgres but they're missing a lot of operators and opclasses to make
> them really useful.
>
> There's no reason we couldn't have separate overlaps and
> overlaps-internally operators just like we have <=,>= and <,>. And it
> would be nice to flesh out the network data type more fully, perhaps
> merging in as much of ip4r as makes sense.

Added to TODO:

Add overlaps geometric operators that ignore point overlaps

* http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-03/msg00861.php

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ None of us is going to be here forever. +