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" :
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>>
On 09/08/18 21:09, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 01:11:05PM +0300, KES wrote:
>> Bruce:
>>> Yes, it would work, but doing that only for equality would be
>>> surprising
>> to many people
>>
>> Why surprising? It is
>> [documented](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/sql-
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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
Bruce Momjian 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
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 01:11:05PM +0300, KES wrote:
> Bruce:
> >Yes, it would work, but doing that only for equality would be
> >surprising
> to many people
>
> Why surprising? It is
> [documented](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/sql-create
> table.html#sql-createtable-exclude):
> >
Bruce:
>Yes, it would work, but doing that only for equality would be surprising
to many people
Why surprising? It is
[documented](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/sql-createtable.html#sql-createtable-exclude):
>If all of the specified operators test for equality, this is equivale
On 2018-Aug-08, KES wrote:
> I do not know many internals and maybe wrong.
>
> But from my point of view with my current knowledge.
> If such exclusion constraint would be marked as UNIQUE we can use it for FK
> while implementing temporal/bi-temporal tables.
>
> And this will be simplify rela
I do not know many internals and maybe wrong.
But from my point of view with my current knowledge.
If such exclusion constraint would be marked as UNIQUE we can use it for FK
while implementing temporal/bi-temporal tables.
And this will be simplify relationing while implementing them.
07.08.20
Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 01:55:53PM +0300, KES wrote:
>> If such exclusion constraint would be marked as UNIQUE we can use it for FK
>> while implementing temporal/bi-temporal tables.
> Yes, it would work, but doing that only for equality would be surprising
> to many peop
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 01:55:53PM +0300, KES wrote:
> I do not know many internals and maybe wrong.
>
> But from my point of view with my current knowledge.
> If such exclusion constraint would be marked as UNIQUE we can use it for FK
> while implementing temporal/bi-temporal tables.
>
> And t
This email was sent to docs, but I think it is a hackers issue. The
person is asking why exclusion constraints aren't marked as UNIQUE
indexes that can be used for referential integrity. I think the reason
is that non-equality exclusion constraints, like preventing overlap, but
don't uniquely i
11 matches
Mail list logo
