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