| From: | tomas(at)tuxteam(dot)de |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Operator class group proposal |
| Date: | 2006-12-16 05:39:37 |
| Message-ID: | 20061216053936.GC27519@www.trapp.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 06:44:10PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> > Operator Superclass ?
>
> Yeah, I thought about that too, but I don't like it much ... can't
> entirely put my finger on why not [...]
I think I can ;-)
"Operator class group", unwieldy as it is, conveys the meaning that we
are talking about _sets of operator classes_. The nicer terms I have
seen all lose a bit of that ring to me.
Regards
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFg4aYBcgs9XrR2kYRAp1mAJ9+ISc7Ex1qCBV2dKgNJSUAOSmR/ACeKt6O
KKp1DI9OkSrlO4VpJbb2xFM=
=KDb3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joachim Wieland | 2006-12-16 10:57:32 | Re: invalid input syntax for type timestamp. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-16 04:55:04 | Re: [HACKERS] psql commandline conninfo |