> > The only problem with this is that I don't want the rename of a > > constraint to have to fall over into the pg_depend table. pg_depend > > is currently happy with system OIDS or a Relation OID and some unique > > number to represent it -- much as pg_description wouldn't want to know > > the name of the constraint for the ability to add a comment to it. > > Good points, but I think those argue for assigning OIDs to constraints > after all. If that is what you want connum for then I have a *big*
Yes, OIDs are probably the right way to go. > problem with it: aren't you assuming that connum will be distinct from > any attribute number that the relation might have? What's going to As far as pg_depend goes, it doesn't care whether they overlap or not as it knows the source (class) relation is pg_constraint. Comment on stuff would need to be changed though. > I had once thought that we could avoid assigning OIDs to rules and > triggers, but learned differently as I got into the implementation. > I'm thinking that constraints will be the same kind of thing; it'll > be a lot easier if you give them OIDs. Sounds like a plan. I'll ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
