Re: operator exclusion constraints

On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 13:41 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-11-07 at 10:56 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> It looks like EXCLUDE is the winner. Updated patch attached.
> 
> The feature is still called "operator exclusion constraints", and the
> docs still make reference to that name, but the syntax specification has
> been updated.

Don't think that name is very useful either... sounds like you want to
exclude operators, which is why I got lost in the first place. I'd call
them "generic exclusion constraints" or "user-defined exclusion
constraints". Sorry for this.

-- Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com