OK, added to TODO:
Allow SET CONSTRAINTS to be qualified by schema/table
Peter, I assume SET CONSTRAINTS can't control a domain's constraints ---
it isn't actually a data object in the transaction. Am I right?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane writes:
>
> > Right. In SQL92 constraint names have to be unique within the table's
> > schema. Postgres allows two different tables to have similarly-named
> > constraints, and that difference is the root of the issue.
>
> But that should not prevent us from assigning an explicit schema to each
> constraint, as we in fact currently do. This issue is a bit more tricky
> than it seems. For example, constraints may also belong to a domain, so
> even if we allowed SET CONSTRAINTS a.b.c it is still not clear that "b" is
> a table.
>
> --
> Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
>
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
