Thread
-
pgsql: Add contraint exclusion section to contraint docs.
momjian@postgresql.org — 2010-04-01T01:18:18Z
Log Message: ----------- Add contraint exclusion section to contraint docs. Takahiro Itagaki Modified Files: -------------- pgsql/doc/src/sgml: ddl.sgml (r1.90 -> r1.91) (http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml?r1=1.90&r2=1.91) -
Re: pgsql: Add contraint exclusion section to contraint docs.
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> — 2010-04-01T10:04:59Z
2010/4/1 Bruce Momjian <momjian@postgresql.org>: > Log Message: > ----------- > Add contraint exclusion section to contraint docs. > > Takahiro Itagaki > > Modified Files: > -------------- > pgsql/doc/src/sgml: > ddl.sgml (r1.90 -> r1.91) > (http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml?r1=1.90&r2=1.91) Obviously, you mean exclusion constraint and not constraint exclusion - yet another case of the bad choice of name showing up :P (contents of the patch seem to get it right, though) -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
-
Re: pgsql: Add contraint exclusion section to contraint docs.
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> — 2010-04-01T13:51:59Z
Magnus Hagander wrote: > 2010/4/1 Bruce Momjian <momjian@postgresql.org>: > > Log Message: > > ----------- > > Add contraint exclusion section to contraint docs. > > > > Takahiro Itagaki > > > > Modified Files: > > -------------- > > ? ?pgsql/doc/src/sgml: > > ? ? ? ?ddl.sgml (r1.90 -> r1.91) > > ? ? ? ?(http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml?r1=1.90&r2=1.91) > > > Obviously, you mean exclusion constraint and not constraint exclusion > - yet another case of the bad choice of name showing up :P > > (contents of the patch seem to get it right, though) Yea. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
-
Re: pgsql: Add contraint exclusion section to contraint docs.
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> — 2010-04-01T17:08:33Z
On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 09:51 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: > > 2010/4/1 Bruce Momjian <momjian@postgresql.org>: > > > Log Message: > > > ----------- > > > Add contraint exclusion section to contraint docs. > > > > > > Takahiro Itagaki > > > > > > Modified Files: > > > -------------- > > > ? ?pgsql/doc/src/sgml: > > > ? ? ? ?ddl.sgml (r1.90 -> r1.91) > > > ? ? ? ?(http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml?r1=1.90&r2=1.91) > > > > > > Obviously, you mean exclusion constraint and not constraint exclusion > > - yet another case of the bad choice of name showing up :P > > > > (contents of the patch seem to get it right, though) > > Yea. How about we call it "exclusivity constraints". Not much of a change, but helps to differentiate. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
-
Re: pgsql: Add contraint exclusion section to contraint docs.
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> — 2010-04-05T02:12:51Z
Simon Riggs wrote: > On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 09:51 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > 2010/4/1 Bruce Momjian <momjian@postgresql.org>: > > > > Log Message: > > > > ----------- > > > > Add contraint exclusion section to contraint docs. > > > > > > > > Takahiro Itagaki > > > > > > > > Modified Files: > > > > -------------- > > > > ? ?pgsql/doc/src/sgml: > > > > ? ? ? ?ddl.sgml (r1.90 -> r1.91) > > > > ? ? ? ?(http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml?r1=1.90&r2=1.91) > > > > > > > > > Obviously, you mean exclusion constraint and not constraint exclusion > > > - yet another case of the bad choice of name showing up :P > > > > > > (contents of the patch seem to get it right, though) > > > > Yea. > > 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 contraints". -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
-
Re: pgsql: Add contraint exclusion section to contraint docs.
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> — 2010-04-05T09:35:53Z
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 contraints". If that is the keyword then that is what people will use, agreed. That is poor English, but I think we can reword the sentences to allow that phrase to make sense. e.g. Added capability for EXCLUDE constraints. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
-
Naming of new EXCLUDE constraints
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> — 2010-04-13T01:28:51Z
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 contraints". > > If that is the keyword then that is what people will use, agreed. > > That is poor English, but I think we can reword the sentences to allow > that phrase to make sense. > > e.g. Added capability for EXCLUDE constraints. I have modified the documentation with the attached patch to call this new features "exclude constraints". Is this what everyone wants? -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
-
Re: Naming of new EXCLUDE constraints
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2010-04-13T02:56:23Z
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> 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, the keyword is EXCLUDE so we could call it "EXCLUDE contraints". >> >> If that is the keyword then that is what people will use, agreed. >> >> That is poor English, but I think we can reword the sentences to allow >> that phrase to make sense. >> >> e.g. Added capability for EXCLUDE constraints. > > I have modified the documentation with the attached patch to call this > new features "exclude constraints". Is this what everyone wants? I don't think we should be changing this without input from a lot more people. We had a very, very long dicussion of this when this was initially under development. Changing it now seems like a good way to reopen a can of worms. ...Robert
-
Re: Naming of new EXCLUDE constraints
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> — 2010-04-13T03:03:16Z
Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> 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, the keyword is EXCLUDE so we could call it "EXCLUDE contraints". > >> > >> If that is the keyword then that is what people will use, agreed. > >> > >> That is poor English, but I think we can reword the sentences to allow > >> that phrase to make sense. > >> > >> e.g. Added capability for EXCLUDE constraints. > > > > I have modified the documentation with the attached patch to call this > > new features "exclude constraints". ?Is this what everyone wants? > > I don't think we should be changing this without input from a lot more > people. We had a very, very long dicussion of this when this was > initially under development. Changing it now seems like a good way to > reopen a can of worms. Fine, then we will just have to live with "exclusion constraints" and "contraint exclusion". -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
-
Re: Naming of new EXCLUDE constraints
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2010-04-13T03:09:25Z
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> 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, the keyword is EXCLUDE so we could call it "EXCLUDE contraints". >> >> >> >> If that is the keyword then that is what people will use, agreed. >> >> >> >> That is poor English, but I think we can reword the sentences to allow >> >> that phrase to make sense. >> >> >> >> e.g. Added capability for EXCLUDE constraints. >> > >> > I have modified the documentation with the attached patch to call this >> > new features "exclude constraints". ?Is this what everyone wants? >> >> I don't think we should be changing this without input from a lot more >> people. We had a very, very long dicussion of this when this was >> initially under development. Changing it now seems like a good way to >> reopen a can of worms. > > 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 consensus to overrule the previous consensus. ...Robert
-
Re: Naming of new EXCLUDE constraints
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2010-04-13T06:15:25Z
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> 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 consensus to overrule the > previous consensus. Well, I'm completely unimpressed with the proposed text, which includes phrases like "uniqueness and exclude constraints". That leaves nothing but the impression that these people don't speak the English too good. regards, tom lane
-
Re: Naming of new EXCLUDE constraints
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> — 2010-04-13T17:11:17Z
Tom Lane escribió: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> 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 consensus to overrule the > > previous consensus. > > Well, I'm completely unimpressed with the proposed text, which includes > phrases like "uniqueness and exclude constraints". That leaves nothing > but the impression that these people don't speak the English too good. I think a simple fix would be to say "don't confuse exclusion contraints with constraint exclusion" somewhere (presumably in documentation for both features), just to raise awareness of the difference. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.