----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Eisentraut" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Stephan Szabo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Hackers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 3:51 AM Subject: Re: [HACKERS] set constraints docs page
> Christopher Kings-Lynne writes: > > > > > It's a constraint name. IIRC, it happens to affect all such named > > > > constraints currently. We should probably allow <tablename>.<constraint> > > > > (and <schema>.<tablename>.<constraint>) as well. Too late for 7.4, but > > > > this can happen for 7.5 if there aren't any objections. > > > > > > I object. > > > > Thanks for the helpful objection. To what do you object specifically and > > why? > > I object to creating gratuitous incompatibilities with the SQL standard, > which will obstruct legitimate features down the road. The SQL standard > says it is <schema>.<constraint>. > Is there a case for enforcing uniqueness on constraint names, then? andrew ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
