Re: operator exclusion constraints

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 19:27:57
Message-ID: 1257449277.28470.88.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 11:16 -0800, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> Well that's clearly a verb. So perhaps "EXCLUDE USING
> gist" ("EXCLUDING USING gist" is a little weirder).

That's not bad.

As I just said in my other email, I think the word EXCLUDE is a little
bit too specific, but the other ideas out there aren't perfect, either.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2009-11-05 20:47:51 Re: Typed tables
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2009-11-05 19:24:48 Re: operator exclusion constraints