The constraint naming isn't really terribly sensible right now. The
names generated should be unique within I think schema according to
the spec and I think that should be true even if users name a constraint
such that it would cause a collision (so, if i name a constraint what
an automatic constraint would normally be named, it should be picking
a different automatic name rather than erroring:
create table test( a int constraint test_b check (a3), b int check
(b3));
)
Until there's a a good way to look at the defined constraints (a catalog
or something) this probably isn't a big deal, since these should also
be unique against the other constraints too (pk, unique, fk).
Stephan Szabo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Hi,
Is it correct behaviour that unnamed table-level check constraints get the
names '$1', '$2', '$3', etc. in Postgres 7.0.3???
Eg, using table constraints:
test=# create table test (temp char(1) NOT NULL, CHECK (temp IN ('M',
'F')));
CREATE
test=# select rcname from pg_relcheck;
rcname
$1
(1 row)
And, even worse - I think this has got to be a bug:
---
test=# create table test (temp char(1) NOT NULL, CHECK (temp IN ('M',
'F')));
CREATE
test=# create table test2 (temp char(1) NOT NULL, CHECK (temp IN ('M',
'F')));
CREATE
test=# select rcname from pg_relcheck;
rcname
$1
$1
(2 rows)
Two constraints with the same name
And if you use column constraints:
--
test=# create table test (temp char(1) NOT NULL CHECK (temp IN ('M', 'F')));
CREATE
test=# select rcname from pg_relcheck;
rcname
---
test_temp
(1 row)
--
Christopher Kings-Lynne
Family Health Network (ACN 089 639 243)
