Re: operator exclusion constraints
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
Cc: "David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2009-11-06T19:22:03Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote: > 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. I don't favor separating them. Locality of reference is good. ...Robert