From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: WIP: generalized index constraints |
Date: | 2009-09-16 17:54:33 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f070909161054o16920c72wbe3494a15ec46395@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 3:14 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 12:37 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Instead of calling these generalized index constraints, I wonder if we
>> oughtn't to be calling them something like "don't-overlap constraints"
>> (that's a bad name, but something along those lines). They're not
>> really general at all, except compared to uniqueness constraints (and
>> they aren't called generalized unique-index constraints, just
>> generalized index constraints).
>
> What they should be called is generalized unique constraints, without
> reference to "index". Because what they generalize is the operator by
> which uniqueness is determined.
Well, it should eventually be possible to use this feature to create
an index which excludes overlapping ranges in fact, unless I
misunderstand, that's the principle likely use case. Which is not
unique-ness at all.
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-09-16 18:10:35 | Feedback on getting rid of VACUUM FULL |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-09-16 17:48:09 | Re: WIP: generalized index constraints |