On Mon, 2009-11-02 at 13:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> writes: > > On Mon, 2009-11-02 at 08:25 +0000, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> I think the word CHECK should be avoided completely in this syntax, to > >> avoid confusion with CHECK constraints. > > > This is an easy change. I don't have a strong opinion, so the only thing > > I can think to do is ask for a vote. > > > Do you have a specific alternative in mind? How about just "WITH"? > > I think we had that discussion already, and rejected using "WITH" by > itself because it was so totally devoid of suggestion of what it was > the system would do "with" the expression or operator. > > If we don't want to introduce a new reserved word it's difficult to > find alternatives :-(. One thing that just came to mind is that we > might be able to do something like > > EXCLUSION (expr CHECK NOT operator) > or > EXCLUSION (expr CONSTRAIN NOT operator) > > I like the "NOT" here because "CHECK NOT =" seems to convey pretty > clearly what it is you are checking for. Because NOT is reserved and > can't appear as a connective, I think that this approach might allow > a non-reserved leading word, thus possibly the second variant would > work without reserving CONSTRAIN. I have not tested whether bison > agrees with me though ;-). In any case I think "CHECK NOT =" reads > pretty well, and don't feel a strong urge to use some other word there.
Yep, like the NOT. Other ideas EXCLUSION (expr NOT operator) CONSTRAINT (expr NOT operator ALL ROWS) -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers