"Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 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?
Other than "SQL92 says so"? Very little. This seems to me to be a
design error in the spec. Per-table constraint names are easier to
work with --- if they're global across a schema then you have a serious
problem avoiding collisions.
The spec does have a notion of "assertions", which are constraints not
tied to any specific table; for those I suppose you need a
schema-wide namespace. I do not foresee us supporting such things
anytime soon though.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
