o:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Christopher
> Kings-Lynne
> Sent: Friday, 4 May 2001 12:33 PM
> To: Hackers
> Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Duplicate constraint names in 7.0.3
>
>
> > A reasonable interpretation of DROP CONSTRAINT "foo" is to drop *all*
> > constrai
> A reasonable interpretation of DROP CONSTRAINT "foo" is to drop *all*
> constraints named "foo" on the target table.
Then it should probably be a good thing to avoid the automatic generation of
duplicate names? I might take a look at that, actually...
Chris
---(end o
On Thu, 3 May 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If I read the spec correctly, table constraint names are supposed to be
> > unique across a schema.
>
> That's what the spec says, but I doubt we should enforce it. For one
> thing, what do you do with inherited
Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If I read the spec correctly, table constraint names are supposed to be
> unique across a schema.
That's what the spec says, but I doubt we should enforce it. For one
thing, what do you do with inherited constraints? Invent a random name
for them? No
em?
Chris
-Original Message-
From: Stephan Szabo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, 4 May 2001 10:48 AM
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne
Cc: Hackers
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Duplicate constraint names in 7.0.3
If I read the spec correctly, table constraint names are supposed to be
unique acros
If I read the spec correctly, table constraint names are supposed to be
unique across a schema. So technically the constraint name should also
not conflict with the name of an fk constraint, or a unique index. In
addition, generated constraint names are supposed to follow the same
syntax rules
Hi,
I have noticed that it is possible to create duplicate CHECK (haven't tried
other) constraints in 7.0.3 by doing something like this:
CREATE TABLE "test" (
"a" int4,
CHECK (a < 400),
CONSTRAINT "$1" CHECK (a > 5)
);
I was just fiddling around with trying to implement the 'DROP CONS
