Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:He wouldn't see identical rows returned from his query any more, would he?
I don't think we really need a method to guarantee unique names. It would
already help a lot if we just added the table name, or something that was
until a short time before the action believed to be the table name, or
even only the table OID, before (or after) the $1.
I don't have a problem with switching from "$1" to "tablename_$1", or some such, for auto-generated constraint names. But if it's not guaranteed unique, does it really satisfy Philip's concern?
My point was that doing this nothing would prevent the user creating duplicate constraint names but the system would not produce (or would be most unlikely to produce) duplicates. I read the thread from last year on Google at
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=18252.1025635125%40sss.pgh.pa.us&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dunique%2Bconstraint%2Bnames%2Bgroup:comp.databases.postgresql.hackers%2Bgroup:comp.databases.postgresql.hackers%2Bgroup:comp.databases.postgresql.hackers%2Bgroup:comp.databases.postgresql.hackers%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Dcomp.databases.postgresql.hackers%26selm%3D18252.1025635125%2540sss.pgh.pa.us%26rnum%3D1
which was why I thought this would be a move in the right direction without encountering those problems.
(I much prefer using tablename to OID, BTW)
cheers
andrew
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
