Pavel Stehule <[email protected]> writes:
> 2013/1/28 Tom Lane <[email protected]>:
>> ... The current patch provides sufficient
>> information to uniquely identify a table constraint, but not so much
>> domain constraints. Should we fix that? I think it'd be legitimate
>> to re-use SCHEMA_NAME for domain schema, but we'd need a new nonstandard
>> field DOMAIN_NAME (or maybe better DATATYPE_NAME) if we want to fix it.
>> Do we want to add that now?
> should be for me.
> one question - what do you thing about marking proprietary field with
> some prefix - like PG_DOMAIN_NAME ?
Don't particularly see the point of that. It seems quite unlikely that
the ISO committee would invent a field with the same name and a
conflicting definition. Anyway, these names aren't going to be exposed
in any non "proprietary" interfaces AFAICS. Surely we don't, for
instance, need to call the postgres_ext.h macro PG_DIAG_PG_DOMAIN_NAME.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
