Re: Typo in doc or wrong EXCLUDE implementation
| От | Tom Lane | 
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Typo in doc or wrong EXCLUDE implementation | 
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 25606.1533843069@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст  | 
		
| Ответ на | Re: Typo in doc or wrong EXCLUDE implementation (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) | 
| Ответы | 
                	
            		Re: Typo in doc or wrong EXCLUDE implementation
            		
            		 Re: Typo in doc or wrong EXCLUDE implementation  | 
		
| Список | pgsql-hackers | 
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 01:11:05PM +0300, KES wrote: >> Why surprising? It is >> [documented](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/sql-create >> table.html#sql-createtable-exclude): >>> If all of the specified operators test for equality, this is >>> equivalent to a UNIQUE constraint, although an ordinary unique >>> constraint will be faster. >> Thus the UNIQUE constraint is just particular case of exclusion >> constraint, is not? > Well, for me a UNIQUE constraint guarantees each discrete value is > unique, while exclusion constraint says discrete or ranges or geometric > types don't overlap. I realize equality is a special case of discrete, > but having such cases be marked as UNIQUE seems too confusing. I think the OP is reading "equivalent" literally, as meaning that an EXCLUDE with operators that act like equality is treated as being the same as UNIQUE for *every* purpose. We're not going there, IMO, so probably we need to tweak the doc wording a little. Perhaps writing "functionally equivalent" would be better? Or instead of "is equivalent to", write "imposes the same restriction as"? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: