On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Jeff Davis <pg...@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.ca...@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". :-) ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
