| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: operator exclusion constraints |
| Date: | 2009-11-08 21:41:03 |
| Message-ID: | 1257716463.5135.7.camel@jdavis |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 2009-11-07 at 10:56 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
> EXCLUDE probably flows most nicely with the optional USING clause or
> without. My only complaint was that it's a transitive verb, so it seems
> to impart more meaning than it actually can. I doubt anyone would
> actually be more confused in practice, though. If a couple of people
> agree, I'll change it to EXCLUDE.
It looks like EXCLUDE is the winner. Updated patch attached.
The feature is still called "operator exclusion constraints", and the
docs still make reference to that name, but the syntax specification has
been updated.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| operator-exclusion-constraints-20091108.context.patch | text/x-patch | 101.3 KB |
| operator-exclusion-constraints-20091108.patch.gz | application/x-gzip | 24.5 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-11-08 22:03:05 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-11-08 21:17:47 | Re: Typed tables |