| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: operator exclusion constraints |
| Date: | 2009-11-08 22:03:05 |
| Message-ID: | 1257717785.5363.20.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 13:41 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
> 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.
Don't think that name is very useful either... sounds like you want to
exclude operators, which is why I got lost in the first place. I'd call
them "generic exclusion constraints" or "user-defined exclusion
constraints". Sorry for this.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2009-11-08 23:03:10 | Re: [PATCH] tsearch parser inefficiency if text includes urls or emails - new version |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-11-08 21:41:03 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |