From: | Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, 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 23:02:59 |
Message-ID: | 20090915230259.GB4570@eddie |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 05:52:35PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> > On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 14:42 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> >> operator constraints
> >> operator exclusion constraints
> >> operator conflict constraints
> >> conflict operator constraints
> >> operator index constraints
> >> index constraints
> >> generalized index constraints
> >> something else?
>
> > Just to add a couple more permutations of Robert Haas's suggestions:
>
> > exclusion operator constraints
> > exclusive operator constraints
>
> To my ear, "operator exclusion constraints" or "exclusive operator
> constraints" seem reasonable; the other permutations of that phrase
> simply aren't good English.
I was having a hard time coming up with a name that was adequately
short-and-sweet, and still conveyed the idea of both "operator" and "index",
which seems important so as to designate between these and the constraints
we've had all along. Perhaps "indexed operator constraints"?
--
Joshua Tolley / eggyknap
End Point Corporation
http://www.endpoint.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Scott Mohekey | 2009-09-15 23:56:26 | Re: Timestamp to time_t |
Previous Message | David Fetter | 2009-09-15 22:05:49 | Re: Hot Standby 0.2.1 |