Re: operator exclusion constraints - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: operator exclusion constraints
Date
Msg-id 1257162829.28888.11.camel@ebony
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: operator exclusion constraints  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 18:07 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> > The syntax be easier to read if it was stated as a comparison
> > e.g. in the circle example
> >   CHECK ( NOT (NEW.c && c)) USING GIST
> 
> I don't think this is a good idea at all.  NEW is a nonstandard
> Postgres-ism, and introducing it into this syntax doesn't seem very
> future-proof to me.  What's more, the above is not in the least
> analogous to a regular CHECK constraint, because there's some implicit
> notion of "c" ranging over all other rows, which is not what is meant
> by the same column reference in a CHECK constraint.
> 
> I agree that the proposed syntax is a bit awkward, but this isn't
> better.

Agreed. Just looking for readable, future-proof syntax.

-- Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Devrim GÜNDÜZ
Date:
Subject: Re: alpha2 bundled -- please verify
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Architecture of walreceiver (Streaming Replication)