Re: operator exclusion constraints - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: operator exclusion constraints
Date
Msg-id 1257717785.5363.20.camel@ebony
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: operator exclusion constraints  (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>)
Responses Re: operator exclusion constraints
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 13:41 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-11-07 at 10:56 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > EXCLUDE probably flows most nicely with the optional USING clause or
> > without. My only complaint was that it's a transitive verb, so it seems
> > to impart more meaning than it actually can. I doubt anyone would
> > actually be more confused in practice, though. If a couple of people
> > agree, I'll change it to EXCLUDE.
> 
> It looks like EXCLUDE is the winner. Updated patch attached.
> 
> The feature is still called "operator exclusion constraints", and the
> docs still make reference to that name, but the syntax specification has
> been updated.

Don't think that name is very useful either... sounds like you want to
exclude operators, which is why I got lost in the first place. I'd call
them "generic exclusion constraints" or "user-defined exclusion
constraints". Sorry for this.

-- Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: operator exclusion constraints
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tsearch parser inefficiency if text includes urls or emails - new version