| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: operator exclusion constraints |
| Date: | 2009-11-05 19:24:48 |
| Message-ID: | 1257449088.28470.84.camel@monkey-cat.sm.truviso.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2009-11-05 at 10:30 -0800, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> But that doesn't read as well to my eye as:
>
> EXCLUDE (...) BY ...
I think EXCLUDE might be a little *too* specific. It sounds like
whatever is on the right hand side will be excluded, but that's not
really what happens.
EXCLUSION is vague about what is doing the excluding and what is being
excluded. I think that's good in this case, because the actual meaning
can't easily be expressed with a couple keywords, so suggesting the
behavior is about as close as we can get (unless someone comes up with a
new idea).
> EXCLUDING (...) BY ...
I think that's better, but still sounds a little wrong to me.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-11-05 19:27:57 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2009-11-05 19:16:28 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |