Horton
Menu

Re: operator exclusion constraints

Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@googlemail.com>

View thread
From: Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@googlemail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2009-11-03T21:31:32Z
Lists: 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