On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 21:31 +0000, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> Is this really a generalized uniqueness constraint, extended to
> support operators other than = ?
That has been discussed in the past:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1253119552.24770.203.camel@jdavishttp://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1253122946.24770.250.camel@jdavis
However, some constraints allowed by this feature are the *opposite* of
unique: consider "<>".
Personally, I don't like to use the word UNIQUE to describe a constraint
that may reject unique values or permit duplicates.
We already have some reasonable agreement around EXCLUSION ... CHECK
WITH. We should stick with the current syntax unless there's a good
consensus around some other specific proposal.
Regards,Jeff Davis