2013/1/28 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> writes: >> 2013/1/28 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: >>> ... 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.
ok Pavel > > 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
