| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 02:26:33 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070912031826l541600a6v1e74604836711ee@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)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.camel@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". :-)
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2009-12-04 02:52:03 | Re: [PATCH] Largeobject Access Controls (r2432) |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2009-12-04 01:40:09 | Format Typmod? |