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

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Robert Haas
Тема Re: operator exclusion constraints [was: generalized index constraints]
Дата
Msg-id 603c8f070909271123n5759043eid2b6e7d15cf0530c@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: operator exclusion constraints [was: generalized index constraints]  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> It's not enough better to justify the conflict with USING opclass, IMO.
>
> An idea that just struck me is CHECK WITH, ie
>
>        EXCLUSION (expr CHECK WITH operator)

I don't like that as well as USING OPERATOR, but I like it far better
than any of the single-word choices, so maybe it's a reasonable
compromise.

...Robert


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5
Следующее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Issues for named/mixed function notation patch