Re: operator exclusion constraints

Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> writes:
> On Sat, 2009-11-07 at 14:11 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Honestly, I'd probably be in favor of breaking the virtual tie in
>> favor of whichever word is already a keyword

> The ones that are already keywords are EXCLUSIVE and EXCLUDING, which
> are also the least desirable, so that rule doesn't work as a
> tie-breaker.

I think it doesn't really matter now that we've succeeded in making the
keyword unreserved.
        regards, tom lane