| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 04:38:06 |
| Message-ID: | 6E7ADC87-2182-49F8-B6E4-E44B45653661@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Dec 3, 2009, at 6:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Yeah, I don't remember any such consensus either, but it's not a dumb
> name. I have been idly wondering throughout this process whether we
> should try to pick a name that conveys the fact that these constraints
> are inextricably tied to the opclass/index machinery - but I'm not
> sure it's possible to really give that flavor in a short phrase, or
> that it's actually important to do so. IOW... "whatever". :-)
"Whatever constraints"? "Operator Whatevers"? "WhatEVER"s? I like it.
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2009-12-04 05:35:10 | [PATCH] Largeobject Access Controls (r2460) |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-12-04 03:51:24 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Rewrite GEQO's gimme_tree function so that it always finds a |