Re: syntax sugar for conditional check - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jim Nasby
Subject Re: syntax sugar for conditional check
Date
Msg-id 56FEF4C3.9010703@BlueTreble.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: syntax sugar for conditional check  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: syntax sugar for conditional check  ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 4/1/16 1:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com> writes:
>> Rather than this, I think an exclusive-or operator would be a lot more
>> useful. The only difficulty I run into with CHECK constaints is when I
>> want to ensure that only ONE condition is true.
>
> "bool != bool" works as XOR.  If you need "exactly one of N" you could
> do something like "(cond1::int + cond2::int + ...) = 1".  We could
> wrap some syntactic sugar around either of these, but it's not clear
> to me that it'd be any more useful than a custom SQL function.

It would prevent having to re-create that function every time... :)
-- 
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade 9.6->9.6: column "amtype" does not exist
Next
From: Robbie Harwood
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11] GSSAPI encryption support