Re: operator exclusion constraints

On Dec 4, 2009, at 11:35 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 19:00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> I'm starting to go through this patch now.  I thought the consensus
>>>> was to refer to them as just "exclusion constraints"?  I'm not  
>>>> seeing
>>>> that the word "operator" really adds anything.
>>>
>>> I assume you're referring to the name used in documentation and  
>>> error
>>> messages. I didn't see a clear consensus, but the relevant thread is
>>> here:
>>>
>>> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1258227283.708.108.camel@jdavis
>>>
>>> "Exclusion Constraints" is fine with me, as are the other options  
>>> listed
>>> in that email.
>
>> Yeah, I don't remember any such consensus either, but it's not a dumb
>> name.  I have been idly wondering throughout this process whether we
>> should try to pick a name that conveys the fact that these  
>> constraints
>> are inextricably tied to the opclass/index machinery - but I'm not
>> sure it's possible to really give that flavor in a short phrase, or
>> that it's actually important to do so.  IOW... "whatever".  :-)
>
> Well, unique constraints are tied to the opclass/index machinery too.
>
> Unless there's loud squawks I'm going to exercise committer's
> prerogative and make all the docs and messages just say "exclusion
> constraint".

Go for it. Membership has its privileges.  :-)

...Robert