Re: operator exclusion constraints [was: generalized index constraints] - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Davis
Subject Re: operator exclusion constraints [was: generalized index constraints]
Date
Msg-id 1253492511.6983.236.camel@jdavis
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: operator exclusion constraints [was: generalized index constraints]  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, 2009-09-20 at 19:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW, are you sure EXCLUSION doesn't have to become a reserved word for
> this?  I notice that FOREIGN, CHECK, and UNIQUE all are, which makes me
> suspicious ...

All of those (except FOREIGN) can be used as a column constraint as
well, and that might be necessary for a reason similar to the reason I
need to use a reserved word (i.e. they can come after a DEFAULT
expression). Is it possible that FOREIGN doesn't really have to be a
reserved word, but was just included because the others were?

I'm not an expert on the matter, but it does appear to compile and
recognize the grammar with EXCLUSION as an unreserved keyword. I'm in
the middle of changing a lot of things around, so I can't say that it
works beyond that.

Regards,Jeff Davis





pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: operator exclusion constraints [was: generalized index constraints]
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Resjunk sort columns, Heikki's index-only quals patch, and bug #5000