Horton
Menu

Re: operator exclusion constraints

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2009-11-06T19:05:26Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
"David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com> writes:
> 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 &&)

I think so too.  Keeping the expression and the associated operator
together seems more readable and less error-prone than having them
separated by other columns.

BTW, where is the optional opclass name going to fit in?  ("There
isn't one" is not an acceptable answer.)

			regards, tom lane