Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> 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". :-)
Well, unique constraints are tied to the opclass/index machinery too.
Unless there's loud squawks I'm going to exercise committer's
prerogative and make all the docs and messages just say "exclusion
constraint".
regards, tom lane
