| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2009-11-07 18:56:39 |
| Message-ID: | 1257620199.27737.593.camel@jdavis |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2009-11-06 at 21:23 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Or maybe forget about it and go to EXCLUDE or EXCLUDING?
I left it as EXCLUSION for now. "EXCLUDING USING ..." and "EXCLUSIVE
USING ..." both sound a little awkward to me. Either could be improved
by moving the USING clause around, but that just creates more grammar
headaches.
EXCLUDE probably flows most nicely with the optional USING clause or
without. My only complaint was that it's a transitive verb, so it seems
to impart more meaning than it actually can. I doubt anyone would
actually be more confused in practice, though. If a couple of people
agree, I'll change it to EXCLUDE.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-11-07 19:08:25 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-11-07 18:46:33 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |