| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 00:42:06 |
| Message-ID: | 1259887326.5880.34.camel@monkey-cat.sm.truviso.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2009-12-04 00:53:47 | Re: First feature patch for plperl - draft [PATCH] |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2009-12-04 00:41:39 | Re: pgbench: new feature allowing to launch shell commands |