From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Naming of new EXCLUDE constraints |
Date: | 2010-04-13 01:28:51 |
Message-ID: | 201004130128.o3D1Sp817223@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-04-04 at 22:12 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Simon Riggs wrote:
> > >
> > > How about we call it "exclusivity constraints".
> > >
> > > Not much of a change, but helps to differentiate.
> >
> > Well, the keyword is EXCLUDE so we could call it "EXCLUDE contraints".
>
> If that is the keyword then that is what people will use, agreed.
>
> That is poor English, but I think we can reword the sentences to allow
> that phrase to make sense.
>
> e.g. Added capability for EXCLUDE constraints.
I have modified the documentation with the attached patch to call this
new features "exclude constraints". Is this what everyone wants?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
/pgpatches/exclude | text/x-diff | 12.9 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-04-13 02:56:23 | Re: Naming of new EXCLUDE constraints |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-04-12 22:09:58 | pgsql: Remove example of archive_command from configure section; |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-04-13 01:31:07 | Re: GSoC - proposal - Materialized Views in PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2010-04-13 00:21:16 | Re: walreceiver is uninterruptible on win32 |