On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 21:31 +0000, Dean Rasheed wrote: > Is this really a generalized uniqueness constraint, extended to > support operators other than = ?
That has been discussed in the past: http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1253119552.24770.203.ca...@jdavis http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1253122946.24770.250.ca...@jdavis However, some constraints allowed by this feature are the *opposite* of unique: consider "<>". Personally, I don't like to use the word UNIQUE to describe a constraint that may reject unique values or permit duplicates. We already have some reasonable agreement around EXCLUSION ... CHECK WITH. We should stick with the current syntax unless there's a good consensus around some other specific proposal. Regards, Jeff Davis -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
