On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 12:11 PM, David E. Wheeler <da...@kineticode.com> wrote: > On Nov 14, 2009, at 8:55 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >>> I've been meaning to comment on this syntax one more time; apologies for >>> the bike-shedding. But I'm wondering if the "CHECK" is strictly necessary >>> there, since the WITH seems adequate, and there was some discussion before >>> about the CHECK keyword possibly causing confusion with check constraints. >> >> I had been manfully restraining myself from re-opening this discussion, >> but yeah I was thinking the same thing. The original objection to using >> just WITH was that it wasn't very clear what you were doing "with" the >> operator; but that was back when we had a different initial keyword for >> the construct. EXCLUDE ... WITH ... seems to match up pretty naturally. > > You're more man than I, Tom, but yeah, with EXCLUDE, WITH works well on its > own, methinks.
I haven't thought about this too deeply, but could we allow the "with =" part to be optional? And would it be a good idea? Seems like you would commonly have one or more keys that exclude on equality and then the last one would use an overlap-type operator. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
