pgsql: Add contraint exclusion section to contraint docs.
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)
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/
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
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
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
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
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
Attachments:
/pgpatches/excludetext/x-diffDownload+36-36
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
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
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
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
Tom Lane escribi�:
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.