Re: operator exclusion constraints - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Davis
Subject Re: operator exclusion constraints
Date
Msg-id 1259887326.5880.34.camel@monkey-cat.sm.truviso.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: operator exclusion constraints  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: operator exclusion constraints  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 19:00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm starting to go through this patch now.  I thought the consensus
> was to refer to them as just "exclusion constraints"?  I'm not seeing
> that the word "operator" really adds anything.

I assume you're referring to the name used in documentation and error
messages. I didn't see a clear consensus, but the relevant thread is
here:

http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1258227283.708.108.camel@jdavis

"Exclusion Constraints" is fine with me, as are the other options listed
in that email.

Regards,Jeff Davis



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: pgbench: new feature allowing to launch shell commands
Next
From: "David E. Wheeler"
Date:
Subject: Re: First feature patch for plperl - draft [PATCH]