Re: operator exclusion constraints

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 19:43:33
Message-ID: 1257623013.27737.606.camel@jdavis
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, 2009-11-07 at 14:11 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> Honestly, I'd probably be in favor of breaking the virtual tie in
> favor of whichever word is already a keyword

The ones that are already keywords are EXCLUSIVE and EXCLUDING, which
are also the least desirable, so that rule doesn't work as a
tie-breaker.

I think that EXCLUSION and EXCLUDE are the options still in the running
here.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-11-08 01:15:34 Re: operator exclusion constraints
Previous Message David E. Wheeler 2009-11-07 19:28:48 Re: operator exclusion constraints