On Sun, 2009-09-20 at 10:08 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Sun, 2009-09-20 at 13:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > The current infrastructure for deferred uniqueness requires that the > > thing actually be a constraint, with an entry in pg_constraint that > > can carry the deferrability options. So unless we want to rethink > > that, this might be a sufficient reason to override my arguments > > about not wanting to use CONSTRAINT syntax. > > Ok. Using the word EXCLUSION would hopefully guard us against future > changes to SQL, but you know more about the subtle dangers of language > changes than I do. > > So, do I still omit it from information_schema?
I would say yes. Overall, I think this terminology is pretty good now. We could say, PostgreSQL has a new constraint type, exclusion constraint. It shares common properties with other constraint types, e.g., deferrability (in the future), ADD/DROP CONSTRAINT, etc. But because the standard does not describe exclusion constraints, they are not listed in the information schema. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
