2013/6/18 Noel Grandin <[email protected]> > > On 2013-06-09 13:43, Lukas Eder wrote: > >> >> Is this the intended behaviour? In my opinion, both constraints should >> appear in the constraints view, though. Note, this is how I would query for >> CHECK constraints in the SQL standard INFORMATION_SCHEMA (e.g. in Postgres, >> or HSQLDB): >> >> > I think it's just an accident of our history. > Changing it would be possible, but we'd probably have to hide the > behaviour behind a flag, for backwards compatibility.
That's what I had thought :-) So, currently, creating a UNION of the two result sets would probably be the way to go forward for me. Are there any plans to move towards semantic versioning (http://semver.org) with H2? The current versioning scheme doesn't formally allow to remove such backwards-compatibility flags again. With semantic versioning, I think it would be OK to change the default behaviour of the INFORMATION_SCHEMA.CONSTRAINTS table in a minor release... Cheers Lukas -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "H2 Database" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/h2-database. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
