Re: set constraints docs page
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: set constraints docs page |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 005201c3664a$9518f640$6401a8c0@DUNSLANE обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: set constraints docs page (Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: set constraints docs page
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e@gmx.net> To: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> Cc: "Stephan Szabo" <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com>; "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 3:51 AM Subject: Re: [HACKERS] set constraints docs page > Christopher Kings-Lynne writes: > > > > > It's a constraint name. IIRC, it happens to affect all such named > > > > constraints currently. We should probably allow <tablename>.<constraint> > > > > (and <schema>.<tablename>.<constraint>) as well. Too late for 7.4, but > > > > this can happen for 7.5 if there aren't any objections. > > > > > > I object. > > > > Thanks for the helpful objection. To what do you object specifically and > > why? > > I object to creating gratuitous incompatibilities with the SQL standard, > which will obstruct legitimate features down the road. The SQL standard > says it is <schema>.<constraint>. > Is there a case for enforcing uniqueness on constraint names, then? andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: