| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Exclusion Constraint vs. Constraint Exclusion |
| Date: | 2009-12-08 00:11:56 |
| Message-ID: | 27351.1260231116@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> We have a very unfortunate naming situation with Jeff Davis's new
> feature, namely the shorter name, which is one permutation away from
> an existing and entirely unrelated feature: Constraint Exclusion,
> which has to do with queries over partitioned tables and like
> entities.
> Renaming it, which I believe we should do Really Soon(TM), to Operator
> [Exclusion] Constraints would fix this problem.
Too late. I just spent about two days making that patch follow the
"exclusion constraints" naming, and I'm not undoing that work.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-12-08 00:21:18 | Re: Reading recovery.conf earlier |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-12-08 00:07:13 | Re: YAML |