| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: generalized index constraints |
| Date: | 2009-09-15 21:42:05 |
| Message-ID: | 1253050925.29243.104.camel@monkey-cat.sm.truviso.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 12:49 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> > I like this much better. Maybe "index operator constraints" or "operator
> > index constraints"?
>
> The word, "index" goes to implementation details, which may change.
Ok, let's vote on a name then:
operator constraints
operator exclusion constraints
operator conflict constraints
conflict operator constraints
operator index constraints
index constraints
generalized index constraints
something else?
Right now, I like "conflict operator constraints" for the long name
(e.g. feature title, long description in docs), and "operator
constraints" for short (e.g. in the code and some places in the docs).
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-09-15 21:46:31 | Re: WIP: generalized index constraints |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-09-15 21:41:59 | Hot Standby 0.2.1 |