Barry Lind wrote:
>
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> >>Using tableoid instead of tablename avoids renaming problems, but makes
> >>the names horribly opaque IMNSHO.
> >
> >
> > Agreed. I think using the OIDs would be a horrible choice.
> >
>
> As a point of reference Oracle uses a naming conventi
Tom Lane wrote:
Using tableoid instead of tablename avoids renaming problems, but makes
the names horribly opaque IMNSHO.
Agreed. I think using the OIDs would be a horrible choice.
As a point of reference Oracle uses a naming convention of 'C' where
is a sequence generated unique
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
. add tableoid or tablename to information_schema.{check_constraints,
referential_constraints} (I think those are the only places where it
would be needed, from my quick skimming).
. add tableoid or tablename to autogenerated table
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think there are several of them from this thread:
> . make autogenerated column constraint names unique per table (by adding
> "_$n" ?)
Check.
> . add tableoid or tablename to information_schema.{check_constraints,
> referential_constraints} (I th
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> regression=# create table foo (f1 int check (f1 > 0) check (f1 < 10));
> >> ERROR: check constraint "foo_f1" already exists
>
> > Is this a TODO to fix?
>
> Probably should be. I'd be inclined to try to fix it
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> regression=# create table foo (f1 int check (f1 > 0) check (f1 < 10));
>> ERROR: check constraint "foo_f1" already exists
> Is this a TODO to fix?
Probably should be. I'd be inclined to try to fix it by generating
"foo_f1_1", "foo_f
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 11:42:13AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
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
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 11:42:13AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> 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
Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
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
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 11:42:13AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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 c
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 11:42:13AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 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 act
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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, b
Tom Lane writes:
> > Would a good halfway house be to ensure that generated names were unique
> > within a schema (e.g. instead of generating "$1" generate
> > "tablename$1")?
>
> No, because that buys into all of the serialization and deadlocking
> problems that doing it the spec's way entail
I
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The reason the spec defines these views this way is that it expects
>> 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)
Tom Lane wrote:
The reason the spec defines these views this way is that it expects
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
const
Philip Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Notice that the two records are identical because the two constraint names
> are the same. ISTM that we should have a way of usefully examining specific
> constraints without having to name them. Can we add the constraint OID or
No. The schemas of th
16 matches
Mail list logo
