On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Joshua Tolley <eggyk...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 05:52:35PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> writes: >> > On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 14:42 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: >> >> operator constraints >> >> operator exclusion constraints >> >> operator conflict constraints >> >> conflict operator constraints >> >> operator index constraints >> >> index constraints >> >> generalized index constraints >> >> something else? >> >> > Just to add a couple more permutations of Robert Haas's suggestions: >> >> > exclusion operator constraints >> > exclusive operator constraints >> >> To my ear, "operator exclusion constraints" or "exclusive operator >> constraints" seem reasonable; the other permutations of that phrase >> simply aren't good English. > > I was having a hard time coming up with a name that was adequately > short-and-sweet, and still conveyed the idea of both "operator" and "index", > which seems important so as to designate between these and the constraints > we've had all along. Perhaps "indexed operator constraints"?
Really I suppose they are indexed operator exclusion constraints, but that may be too wordy. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
