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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: operator exclusion constraints [was: generalized index constraints]
Date
Msg-id 23560.1253467718@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: operator exclusion constraints [was: generalized index constraints]  (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>)
Responses Re: operator exclusion constraints [was: generalized index constraints]
List pgsql-hackers
Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> writes:
> On Sun, 2009-09-20 at 13:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> You're right, it still seems remarkably marginal.  I'm rethinking
>> my position on use of CONSTRAINT syntax because of the deferrability
>> issue, but I'm still unconvinced that we need to allow the constraints
>> to be decoupled from the indexes.

> Ok, should I explicitly disallow multiple constraints on one index then?

What I'm arguing for is a syntax in which the question doesn't even
arise, ie, a CONSTRAINT doesn't reference an existing index at all.
If that's not possible for whatever reason, then I think that
disallowing multiple references isn't going to buy any simplicity.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: operator exclusion constraints [was: generalized index constraints]
Next
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: operator exclusion constraints [was: generalized index constraints]