Horton
Menu

Re: WIP: generalized index constraints

Joshua Tolley <eggyknap@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Joshua Tolley <eggyknap@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>, David Fetter <david@fetter.org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Brendan Jurd <direvus@gmail.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2009-09-15T23:02:59Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 05:52:35PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> writes:
> > On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 14:42 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> >> operator constraints
> >> operator exclusion constraints
> >> operator conflict constraints
> >> conflict operator constraints
> >> operator index constraints
> >> index constraints
> >> generalized index constraints
> >> something else?
> 
> > Just to add a couple more permutations of Robert Haas's suggestions:
> 
> >  exclusion operator constraints
> >  exclusive operator constraints
> 
> To my ear, "operator exclusion constraints" or "exclusive operator
> constraints" seem reasonable; the other permutations of that phrase
> simply aren't good English.

I was having a hard time coming up with a name that was adequately
short-and-sweet, and still conveyed the idea of both "operator" and "index",
which seems important so as to designate between these and the constraints
we've had all along. Perhaps "indexed operator constraints"?

--
Joshua Tolley / eggyknap
End Point Corporation
http://www.endpoint.com