| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, 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>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: operator exclusion constraints |
| Date: | 2009-11-14 19:34:43 |
| Message-ID: | 1258227283.708.108.camel@jdavis |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 09:12 -0800, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Nov 8, 2009, at 7:43 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
>
> > Either of those names are fine with me, too. The current name is a
> > somewhat shortened version of the name "operator-based exclusion
> > constraints", so we can also just use that name. Or, just "exclusion
> > constraints".
>
> (exclusion constraints)++
Ok, I guess this is another issue that requires consensus.
Note: this is purely for documentation, release notes, and user-visible
error messages. This does not have any impact on the syntax, I think
we've got a strong consensus on that already and I would prefer not to
break that discussion open again.
1. Operator Exclusion Constraints (current)
2. Generic/Generalized/General Exclusion Constraints
3. Exclusion Constraints (has the potential to cause confusion with
constraint_exclusion)
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-11-14 19:35:29 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-11-14 19:28:56 | patch - per-tablespace random_page_cost/seq_page_cost |