On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 12:37 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> Instead of calling these generalized index constraints, I wonder if we >> oughtn't to be calling them something like "don't-overlap constraints" >> (that's a bad name, but something along those lines). They're not >> really general at all, except compared to uniqueness constraints (and >> they aren't called generalized unique-index constraints, just >> generalized index constraints). > > What would you like to be able to enforce using an index that can't be > solved by this patch? It only works for constraints entirely within a > single table, can you think of a way to express that better? > > In the code/docs, mostly I call them just "index constraints" or some > variation thereof. But for the lists, I think that might be too vague. > > I don't want to call them "don't overlap constraints", because it's not > limited to a non-overlapping constraint.
Oh. What else can you do with it? > I also don't think "generalized > unique-index constraints" is a good name: it's confusing and it makes it > sound like it is some new way to use a unique index. I agree. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers