| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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 21:52:35 |
| Message-ID: | 24435.1253051555@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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'm not tremendously happy with any of them though...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2009-09-15 22:05:49 | Re: Hot Standby 0.2.1 |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-09-15 21:46:31 | Re: WIP: generalized index constraints |