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

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: operator exclusion constraints [was: generalized index constraints]
Date
Msg-id 1253707816.20834.9.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: operator exclusion constraints [was: generalized index constraints]  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: operator exclusion constraints [was: generalized index constraints]
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, 2009-09-20 at 19:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> writes:
> > I suppose I should just allow any index_elem. The only way I was able to
> > make the grammar for that work is by using a reserved keyword. The
> > possibilities that make the most sense to me are:
> 
> >   index_elem WITH any_operator
> >   index_elem WITH OPERATOR any_operator
> >   index_elem CHECK any_operator
> >   index_elem CHECK OPERATOR any_operator
> 
> > Do any of these look acceptable?
> 
> I'd vote for "CHECK", out of that list.  WITH has no mnemonic value
> whatever.

Using CHECK as part of the syntax of an EXCLUSION constraint will surely
confuse the whole thing with CHECK constraints.

USING OPERATOR is available, I think.




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Hot Standby 0.2.1
Next
From: Petr Jelinek
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] DefaultACLs