Re: Naming of new EXCLUDE constraints

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.

In response to

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  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.

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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