On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: > On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 14:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> What about them? It's not clear why you think this requires anything >> special. > > >From a syntax standpoint, I need to represent one operator for every > index column involved in the constraint. So, if there's a functional > index on ((a||b)::circle), I clearly can't have an exclusion constraint > like (a =, b =). > > I see two options: > > 1. (<expr> <op>), where <expr> is an expression over table attributes > that must have the exact signature as the expression for the index. > 2. (<index_col> <op>), and then read the expression from the index
I was wondering if we couldn't introduce a dummy tuple name similar to OLD and NEW, called, say, OTHER. Then instead of writing a =, you could write a = OTHER.a ... or perhaps a = OTHER.b ... although that might also open the door to more things than you want to support at this point. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
