Re: operator exclusion constraints

Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> writes:
> On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 09:02 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I disagree wholeheartedly.  :-)  My ideal error message is something like:
>> 
>> DETAIL: (a, b, c)=(1, 2, 3) conflicts with (a, b, c)=(4, 5, 6)

> Ok, fair enough. But how do you feel about:
>   (a: 1, b: 2, c: 3)
> as a tuple representation instead?

This seems like change for the sake of change.  We've been reporting
this type of error (in the context of foreign keys) using the first
syntax for a very long time.  I don't feel a need to rearrange it.

			regards, tom lane