On Mon, 2009-11-02 at 18:28 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > > 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. >
Peter, do any of these ideas work for you? It looks like this opens the door to using a word other than CHECK. CONSTRAIN NOT is a little awkward, is there another word that might work better? I'm not excited about using NOT, because I think it has a hint of a double-negative when combined with EXCLUSION. The original idea was to specify the way to find tuples mutually exclusive with the new tuple; and NOT makes that a little less clear, in my opinion. But I'm fine with it if that's what everyone else thinks is best. 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