Re: operator exclusion constraints

From: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(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: 2009-11-09 17:12:38
Message-ID: 2EB6D2EC-82D7-4E4A-A010-91332B9272DF@kineticode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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)++

David

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2009-11-09 17:26:51 Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Rewrite GEQO's gimme_tree function so that it always finds a
Previous Message Sam Mason 2009-11-09 16:47:13 Re: more support for various frame types of window functions