| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: operator exclusion constraints |
| Date: | 2009-11-07 19:08:25 |
| Message-ID: | 12134.1257620905@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> 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.
EXCLUDE sounds good to me.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-11-07 19:11:43 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-11-07 18:56:39 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |