| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, 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 19:28:48 |
| Message-ID: | E897E0C9-C8A5-451E-9A42-FA17143F8ECF@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Nov 7, 2009, at 11:08 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.
>
> EXCLUDE sounds good to me.
+1
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-11-07 19:43:33 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-11-07 19:11:43 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |