| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| 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: | 2009-11-08 01:15:34 |
| Message-ID: | 16659.1257642934@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> 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 it doesn't really matter now that we've succeeded in making the
keyword unreserved.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-11-08 01:45:00 | Re: Specific names for plpgsql variable-resolution control options? |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-11-07 19:43:33 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |