On Dec 4, 2009, at 11:35 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 19:00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm starting to go through this patch now. I thought the consensus
was to refer to them as just "exclusion constraints"? I'm not
seeing
that the word "operator" really adds anything.
I assume you're referring to the name used in documentation and
error
messages. I didn't see a clear consensus, but the relevant thread is
here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1258227283.708.108.ca...@jdavis
"Exclusion Constraints" is fine with me, as are the other options
listed
in that email.
Yeah, I don't remember any such consensus either, but it's not a dumb
name. I have been idly wondering throughout this process whether we
should try to pick a name that conveys the fact that these
constraints
are inextricably tied to the opclass/index machinery - but I'm not
sure it's possible to really give that flavor in a short phrase, or
that it's actually important to do so. IOW... "whatever". :-)
Well, unique constraints are tied to the opclass/index machinery too.
Unless there's loud squawks I'm going to exercise committer's
prerogative and make all the docs and messages just say "exclusion
constraint".
Go for it. Membership has its privileges. :-)
...Robert
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
