2012/12/29 Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net>: > * Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote: >> > Having just constraint_schema and constraint_name feels horribly wrong >> > as the definition of a constraint also includes a pg_class oid. >> >> but then TABLE_NAME and TABLE_SCHEMA will be defined. > > How are you going to look up the constraint? Using constraint_schema, > table_name, and constraint_name? Or table_schema, table_name and > constraint_name? When do you use constraint_schema instead of > table_schema? > > None of those options is exactly clear or understandable...
probably there will be situation when TABLE_SCHEMA and CONSTRAINT_SCHEMA same values Hypothetically - if we define CONSTRAINT_TABLE - what is difference from TABLE_NAME ? Pavel > > Thanks, > > Stephen -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
