On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 05:52:35PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> writes:
>> > On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 14:42 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
>> >> operator constraints
>> >> operator exclusion constraints
>> >> operator conflict constraints
>> >> conflict operator constraints
>> >> operator index constraints
>> >> index constraints
>> >> generalized index constraints
>> >> something else?
>>
>> > Just to add a couple more permutations of Robert Haas's suggestions:
>>
>> > exclusion operator constraints
>> > exclusive operator constraints
>>
>> To my ear, "operator exclusion constraints" or "exclusive operator
>> constraints" seem reasonable; the other permutations of that phrase
>> simply aren't good English.
>
> I was having a hard time coming up with a name that was adequately
> short-and-sweet, and still conveyed the idea of both "operator" and "index",
> which seems important so as to designate between these and the constraints
> we've had all along. Perhaps "indexed operator constraints"?
Really I suppose they are indexed operator exclusion constraints, but
that may be too wordy.
...Robert
