On 2015-05-06 13:05:16 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > >> In this variant, you explicitly specify the constraint by name. > > > > I do think it's a bit sad to not be able to specify unique indexes that > > aren't constraints. So I'd like to have a corresponding ON INDEX - which > > would be trivial. > > Then what's the point of having ON CONSTRAINT?
That it supports exclusion constraints? > I would care about the fact that you can't name a unique index with no > constraint if there wasn't already a way of doing that with inference > (I'm thinking in particular of partial indexes here, which never have > constraints). But there is. So what's the problem? Personally I think a complex expression index is something many people will not want to specify every time. And since partial/expression indexes can't even have constraints... Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
