On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 13:41 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Sat, 2009-11-07 at 10:56 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote: > > EXCLUDE probably flows most nicely with the optional USING clause or > > without. My only complaint was that it's a transitive verb, so it seems > > to impart more meaning than it actually can. I doubt anyone would > > actually be more confused in practice, though. If a couple of people > > agree, I'll change it to EXCLUDE. > > It looks like EXCLUDE is the winner. Updated patch attached. > > The feature is still called "operator exclusion constraints", and the > docs still make reference to that name, but the syntax specification has > been updated.
Don't think that name is very useful either... sounds like you want to exclude operators, which is why I got lost in the first place. I'd call them "generic exclusion constraints" or "user-defined exclusion constraints". Sorry for this. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
