On 2015-05-06 13:05:16 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> >> In this variant, you explicitly specify the constraint by name.
> >
> > I do think it's a bit sad to not be able to specify unique indexes that
> > aren't constraints. So I'd like to have a corresponding ON INDEX - which
> > would be trivial.
>
> Then what's the point of having ON CONSTRAINT?
That it supports exclusion constraints?
> I would care about the fact that you can't name a unique index with no
> constraint if there wasn't already a way of doing that with inference
> (I'm thinking in particular of partial indexes here, which never have
> constraints). But there is. So what's the problem?
Personally I think a complex expression index is something many people
will not want to specify every time. And since partial/expression
indexes can't even have constraints...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
