Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: small exclusion constraints patch

From: Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: small exclusion constraints patch
Date: 2010-05-30 10:54:17
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 2010-05-30 06:55 +0300, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 11:40 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Yes, I've seen Jeff's example.  It's a cute hack but somehow I doubt
>> that there is going to be a land rush to implement such things.
>> Can you point to any pre-existing example where anyone actually asked
>> for the ability to do that?
> I've often wished for the ability to constrain a tale to hold just one
> row, so I don't find that use case implausible at all.

As I pointed out in , you
can already do that.

Having said that, I also think that supporting <> in exclusion
constraints would be useful.  I can't come up with a real-world use case
right now though.

Marko Tiikkaja

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2010-05-30 11:00:03
Subject: server authentication over Unix-domain sockets
Previous:From: Andres FreundDate: 2010-05-30 09:56:16
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH]: CRC32 is limiting at COPY/CTAS/INSERT ... SELECT + speeding it up

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group