On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >> > Simon Riggs wrote: >> >> On Sun, 2010-04-04 at 22:12 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> >> > Simon Riggs wrote: >> >> > > >> >> > > How about we call it "exclusivity constraints". >> >> > > >> >> > > Not much of a change, but helps to differentiate. >> >> > >> >> > Well, the keyword is EXCLUDE so we could call it "EXCLUDE contraints". >> >> >> >> If that is the keyword then that is what people will use, agreed. >> >> >> >> That is poor English, but I think we can reword the sentences to allow >> >> that phrase to make sense. >> >> >> >> e.g. Added capability for EXCLUDE constraints. >> > >> > I have modified the documentation with the attached patch to call this >> > new features "exclude constraints". ?Is this what everyone wants? >> >> I don't think we should be changing this without input from a lot more >> people. We had a very, very long dicussion of this when this was >> initially under development. Changing it now seems like a good way to >> reopen a can of worms. > > Fine, then we will just have to live with "exclusion constraints" and > "contraint exclusion".
I am not necessarily 100% averse to changing it... just saying that it shouldn't be done unless we have a clear consensus to overrule the previous consensus. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
