Re: operator exclusion constraints
От | Jeff Davis |
---|---|
Тема | Re: operator exclusion constraints |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1257267063.27737.490.camel@jdavis обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: operator exclusion constraints (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: operator exclusion constraints
Re: operator exclusion constraints |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2009-11-02 at 18:28 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > > I like the "NOT" here because "CHECK NOT =" seems to convey pretty > > clearly what it is you are checking for. Because NOT is reserved and > > can't appear as a connective, I think that this approach might allow > > a non-reserved leading word, thus possibly the second variant would > > work without reserving CONSTRAIN. I have not tested whether bison > > agrees with me though ;-). In any case I think "CHECK NOT =" reads > > pretty well, and don't feel a strong urge to use some other word there. > Peter, do any of these ideas work for you? It looks like this opens the door to using a word other than CHECK. CONSTRAIN NOT is a little awkward, is there another word that might work better? I'm not excited about using NOT, because I think it has a hint of a double-negative when combined with EXCLUSION. The original idea was to specify the way to find tuples mutually exclusive with the new tuple; and NOT makes that a little less clear, in my opinion. But I'm fine with it if that's what everyone else thinks is best. Regards,Jeff Davis
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: