From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Naming of new EXCLUDE constraints |
Date: | 2010-04-13 17:11:17 |
Message-ID: | 20100413171117.GB2990@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane escribió:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> Well, I'm completely unimpressed with the proposed text, which includes
> phrases like "uniqueness and exclude constraints". That leaves nothing
> but the impression that these people don't speak the English too good.
I think a simple fix would be to say "don't confuse exclusion contraints
with constraint exclusion" somewhere (presumably in documentation for
both features), just to raise awareness of the difference.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | User Fxjr | 2010-04-13 23:11:51 | npgsql - Npgsql2: Updated AssemblyInfo file with generated information. |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-04-13 14:17:46 | pgsql: Allow Hot Standby to begin from a shutdown checkpoint. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-04-13 17:31:33 | Re: Timezone matching script (win32) |
Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2010-04-13 16:08:08 | Re: testing hot standby |