Re: operator exclusion constraints
От | Jeff Davis |
---|---|
Тема | Re: operator exclusion constraints |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1257534688.28470.215.camel@monkey-cat.sm.truviso.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: operator exclusion constraints ("David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: operator exclusion constraints
|
Список | 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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: