Robert Treat <r...@xzilla.net> writes: > Actually I think I'd even be comfortable with A, either you must name the > constraint after the index, or you can leave the constraint name out, and > we'll use the index name.
Or we could omit the "CONSTRAINT name" clause from the syntax altogether. I think that allowing the names to be different is a bad idea. That hasn't been possible in the past and there's no apparent reason why this feature should suddenly make it possible. We will have problems with it, for instance failures on name collisions because generated names are only checked against one catalog or the other. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers