Re: operator exclusion constraints

Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>

To: "David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com>

Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org

Date: 2009-11-06T19:11:28Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 2009-11-06 at 10:50 -0800, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> Is your objection to EXCLUDE for cases when there is no USING clause?
> 
>      EXLUDE (room, during) BY (=, &&)
> 

"Objection" is too strong a word. EXCLUDE is a transitive verb, so it's
slightly confusing in the above case.

> BTW, is it the case that room maps to = and during maps to && in this  
> example? If so, wouldn't it make more sense to combine them?
> 
>      EXCLUSION (room WITH =, during WITH &&)

That's (close to) the current syntax, which I'm perfectly fine with.
Form 1 with EXCLUSION/CHECK WITH is the current syntax.

It seemed like the winds were shifting towards separating them, but I'm
happy leaving it alone.

Regards,
	Jeff Davis