Re: operator exclusion constraints

On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 11:35:52AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)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.camel@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". :-)
>
> Well, unique constraints are tied to the opclass/index machinery
> too.
>
> Unless there's loud squawks I'm going to exercise committer's
> prerogative and make all the docs and messages just say "exclusion
> constraint".

We have "constraint exclusion" already, which could make this
confusing. How about either the original "operator exclusion
constraint" or the slightly easier "whatever constraint" names?

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate