WIP: generalized index constraints
in [PgSql]
|
Prev: corrupted double-linked list
Next: Timestamp to time_t
From: Brendan Jurd on 15 Sep 2009 12:44 2009/9/16 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com>: > Instead of calling these generalized index constraints, I wonder if we > oughtn't to be calling them something like "don't-overlap constraints" > (that's a bad name, but something along those lines). They're not > really general at all, except compared to uniqueness constraints (and > they aren't called generalized unique-index constraints, just > generalized index constraints). Well "generalized index constraints" is what we're calling the patch, but I don't think they are called by that name anywhere in the proposed documentation changes. In the extension to ALTER TABLE syntax, they are simply referred to as "index_constraint". Cheers, BJ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Jeff Davis on 15 Sep 2009 12:54 On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 12:37 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > Instead of calling these generalized index constraints, I wonder if we > oughtn't to be calling them something like "don't-overlap constraints" > (that's a bad name, but something along those lines). They're not > really general at all, except compared to uniqueness constraints (and > they aren't called generalized unique-index constraints, just > generalized index constraints). What would you like to be able to enforce using an index that can't be solved by this patch? It only works for constraints entirely within a single table, can you think of a way to express that better? In the code/docs, mostly I call them just "index constraints" or some variation thereof. But for the lists, I think that might be too vague. I don't want to call them "don't overlap constraints", because it's not limited to a non-overlapping constraint. I also don't think "generalized unique-index constraints" is a good name: it's confusing and it makes it sound like it is some new way to use a unique index. Regards, Jeff Davis -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Robert Haas on 15 Sep 2009 13:13 On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(a)j-davis.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 12:37 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> Instead of calling these generalized index constraints, I wonder if we >> oughtn't to be calling them something like "don't-overlap constraints" >> (that's a bad name, but something along those lines). They're not >> really general at all, except compared to uniqueness constraints (and >> they aren't called generalized unique-index constraints, just >> generalized index constraints). > > What would you like to be able to enforce using an index that can't be > solved by this patch? It only works for constraints entirely within a > single table, can you think of a way to express that better? > > In the code/docs, mostly I call them just "index constraints" or some > variation thereof. But for the lists, I think that might be too vague. > > I don't want to call them "don't overlap constraints", because it's not > limited to a non-overlapping constraint. Oh. What else can you do with it? > I also don't think "generalized > unique-index constraints" is a good name: it's confusing and it makes it > sound like it is some new way to use a unique index. I agree. ....Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Brendan Jurd on 15 Sep 2009 13:14 2009/9/16 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com>: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(a)j-davis.com> wrote: >> I don't want to call them "don't overlap constraints", because it's not >> limited to a non-overlapping constraint. > > Oh. What else can you do with it? Anything that there is an operator for. Cheers, BJ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Robert Haas on 15 Sep 2009 13:16
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Brendan Jurd <direvus(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/9/16 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com>: >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(a)j-davis.com> wrote: >>> I don't want to call them "don't overlap constraints", because it's not >>> limited to a non-overlapping constraint. >> >> Oh. What else can you do with it? > > Anything that there is an operator for. Uhh.... so what happens if I create an index constraint using the +(integer, integer) operator? ....Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers |