On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Jeff Davis <[email protected]> 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". :-)
...Robert
