On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 12:37 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Instead of calling these generalized index constraints, I wonder if we
> oughtn't to be calling them something like "don't-overlap constraints"
> (that's a bad name, but something along those lines). They're not
> really general at all, except compared to uniqueness constraints (and
> they aren't called generalized unique-index constraints, just
> generalized index constraints).
What would you like to be able to enforce using an index that can't be
solved by this patch? It only works for constraints entirely within a
single table, can you think of a way to express that better?
In the code/docs, mostly I call them just "index constraints" or some
variation thereof. But for the lists, I think that might be too vague.
I don't want to call them "don't overlap constraints", because it's not
limited to a non-overlapping constraint. I also don't think "generalized
unique-index constraints" is a good name: it's confusing and it makes it
sound like it is some new way to use a unique index.
Regards,Jeff Davis
