Re: operator exclusion constraints

"David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com> writes:
> 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 &&)

I think so too.  Keeping the expression and the associated operator
together seems more readable and less error-prone than having them
separated by other columns.

BTW, where is the optional opclass name going to fit in?  ("There
isn't one" is not an acceptable answer.)
        regards, tom lane