Tom Lane escribió:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> Fine, then we will just have to live with "exclusion constraints" and
> >> "contraint exclusion".
>
> > I am not necessarily 100% averse to changing it... just saying that it
> > shouldn't be
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Fine, then we will just have to live with "exclusion constraints" and
>> "contraint exclusion".
> I am not necessarily 100% averse to changing it... just saying that it
> shouldn't be done unless we have a clear cons
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > Simon Riggs wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 2010-04-04 at 22:12 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> >> > Simon Riggs wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > How about we call it "exclusivi
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > 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 hel
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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
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 contrain
