huh, maybe you are right, I missread that. English is not my native language. Actually I come there from FK constraints.
Would it be sufficient for FK require not UNIQUEs, but **allow** "EXCLUDE with operators that act like equality"? 09.08.2018, 22:31, "Tom Lane" <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: >> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 01:11:05PM +0300, KES wrote: >>> Why surprising? It is >>> [documented](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/sql-create >>> table.html#sql-createtable-exclude): >>>> If all of the specified operators test for equality, this is >>>> equivalent to a UNIQUE constraint, although an ordinary unique >>>> constraint will be faster. > >>> Thus the UNIQUE constraint is just particular case of exclusion >>> constraint, is not? > >> Well, for me a UNIQUE constraint guarantees each discrete value is >> unique, while exclusion constraint says discrete or ranges or geometric >> types don't overlap. I realize equality is a special case of discrete, >> but having such cases be marked as UNIQUE seems too confusing. > > I think the OP is reading "equivalent" literally, as meaning that > an EXCLUDE with operators that act like equality is treated as being > the same as UNIQUE for *every* purpose. We're not going there, IMO, > so probably we need to tweak the doc wording a little. Perhaps > writing "functionally equivalent" would be better? Or instead of > "is equivalent to", write "imposes the same restriction as"? > > regards, tom lane
