Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> On Sun, 2010-04-04 at 22:12 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> > Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > How about we call it "exclusivity constraints".
> >> > >
> >> > > Not much of a change, but helps to differentiate.
> >> >
> >> > Well, the keyword is EXCLUDE so we could call it "EXCLUDE contraints".
> >>
> >> If that is the keyword then that is what people will use, agreed.
> >>
> >> That is poor English, but I think we can reword the sentences to allow
> >> that phrase to make sense.
> >>
> >> e.g. Added capability for EXCLUDE constraints.
> >
> > I have modified the documentation with the attached patch to call this
> > new features "exclude constraints". ?Is this what everyone wants?
>
> I don't think we should be changing this without input from a lot more
> people. We had a very, very long dicussion of this when this was
> initially under development. Changing it now seems like a good way to
> reopen a can of worms.
Fine, then we will just have to live with "exclusion constraints" and
"contraint exclusion".
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
