Re: WIP: generalized index constraints

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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