Re: operator exclusion constraints - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dean Rasheed
Subject Re: operator exclusion constraints
Date
Msg-id 8e2dbb700911031331p49c5763fl277df34006d3d3d5@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: operator exclusion constraints  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: operator exclusion constraints
List pgsql-hackers
2009/11/3 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> writes:
>> I'm not excited about using NOT, because I think it has a hint of a
>> double-negative when combined with EXCLUSION.
>
> Well, the choice of EXCLUSION isn't set in stone either ...
>

Is this really a generalized uniqueness constraint, extended to
support operators other than = ?
Perhaps sticking with the word UNIQUE might be more suggestive of this:
 UNIQUE (room_number WITH = , during WITH &&)

or:
 UNIQUE (room_number , during USING && )

- Dean


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Steve Crawford
Date:
Subject: Re: EOL for 7.4?
Next
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: operator exclusion constraints