Re: Plans for index names unique to a table?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> Either of these cures strikes me as worse than the disease.  Now that we
> have schemas, I don't think that the index name collision problem is
> near as bad as it used to be.  I'm not eager to uglify the catalog
> structure to eliminate the problem.
>
> We'd also be creating some compatibility headaches --- for instance,
> DROP INDEX would have to change syntax to include the table name.
>

I'm not suggesting this needs to be done, since localising names is in the
end a convenience, albeit a mighty big one. But it did occur to me that if
this were deemed necessary, backwards compatibility might be handled by
having the existing syntax work where the index name is unique, and some
extension (like "drop index foo from table bar") be required where it isn't.

In the end the cost might well be greater than the benefit, though.

andrew