The reason the spec defines these views this way is that it expectsWould a good halfway house be to ensure that generated names were unique within a schema (e.g. instead of generating "$1" generate "tablename$1")? I know this might make looking to see if something is a generated constraint mildly harder. It would have the advantage of a slightly more meaningful name on the constraint.
constraint names to be unique across a whole schema. We don't enforce
that, and I don't think we want to start doing so (that was already
proposed and shot down at least once). You are of course free to use
constraint names that are distinct if you want to follow the spec's
lead.
Doing that we still wouldn't enforce the spec's requirements for uniqueness of constraint names within a schema (which are arguably silly), but wouldn't violate them ourselves.
(I'm sure there are wrinkles I haven't thought of, though. Not sure about what it would do to backwards compatibility, for instance.)
cheers
andrew
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
