Re: operator exclusion constraints

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
> 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.

I don't favor separating them.  Locality of reference is good.

...Robert