Re: operator exclusion constraints

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: 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: 2009-12-04 00:00:06
Message-ID: 10710.1259884806@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 23:19 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> For parity with unique constraints, I think that the message:
>>
>> operator exclusion constraint violation detected: %s
>>
>> should be changed to:
>>
>> conflicting key value violates operator exclusion constraint "%s"

> Done, and updated tests.

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.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2009-12-04 00:02:46 Installing PL/pgSQL by default
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2009-12-03 23:47:21 Re: Initial refactoring of plperl.c - rebased [PATCH]