Re: operator exclusion constraints

"David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com> writes:
> On Nov 13, 2009, at 8:39 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> alter table foo add constraint bar exclude (a check with =, b check with =);

> I've been meaning to comment on this syntax one more time; apologies for the bike-shedding. But I'm wondering if the
"CHECK"is strictly necessary there, since the WITH seems adequate, and there was some discussion before about the CHECK
keywordpossibly causing confusion with check constraints.
 

I had been manfully restraining myself from re-opening this discussion,
but yeah I was thinking the same thing.  The original objection to using
just WITH was that it wasn't very clear what you were doing "with" the
operator; but that was back when we had a different initial keyword for
the construct.  EXCLUDE ... WITH ... seems to match up pretty naturally.
        regards, tom lane