On Dec 3, 2009, at 6:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> 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". :-)
"Whatever constraints"? "Operator Whatevers"? "WhatEVER"s? I like it.
David
