On Sun, 2009-09-20 at 13:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> What I'm arguing for is a syntax in which the question doesn't even
> arise, ie, a CONSTRAINT doesn't reference an existing index at all.
> If that's not possible for whatever reason, then I think that
> disallowing multiple references isn't going to buy any simplicity.
I believe that syntax is possible by specifying the index access method,
e.g.:
CONSTRAINT <name> EXCLUSION (a =, b &&) USING gist;
versus:
CONSTRAINT <name> EXCLUSION (a =, b &&) INDEX <indexname>;
And the former could build the index implicitly. I haven't written the
code yet, but I don't see any major problems.
So, should I eliminate the latter syntax and only support the former, or
should I support both?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
