Re: operator exclusion constraints [was: generalized index constraints]

On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> writes:
>> We can either eliminate the USING variant from opt_class (unless it's
>> necessary for some reason or I missed it in the documentation), or we
>> can use another word (e.g. WITH or WITH OPERATOR) if you don't like
>> CHECK.
>
> Hmm ... we don't seem to have documented the USING noise-word, so it
> probably would be safe to remove it; but why take a chance?  I don't
> particularly agree with Peter's objection to CHECK.  There are plenty
> of examples in SQL of the same keyword being used for different purposes
> in nearby places.  Indeed you could make about the same argument to
> object to USING, since it'd still be there in "USING access_method"
> elsewhere in the same command.
>
> I think that USING is just about as content-free as WITH in this
> particular example --- it doesn't give you any hint about what the
> purpose of the operator is.

USING might be just as content-free as WITH, but USING OPERATOR seems
clearly better, at least IMO.

Also, this patch has not been updated in a week, and the clock is
ticking: if we don't have an updated version RSN, we need to move this
to Returned with Feedback and wait until next CommitFest.  That would
be too bad; this is an awesome feature.

Thanks,

...Robert