On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
> 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.
Oh. What else can you do with it?
> 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.
I agree.
...Robert
